1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
|
Return-Path: <heater@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4ED49C24
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 19:04:29 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pf0-f195.google.com (mail-pf0-f195.google.com
[209.85.192.195])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82948201
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 19:04:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pf0-f195.google.com with SMTP id w12so1183732pfk.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references
:to; bh=Fg7siHAPKFIpTZbq0UXPxkGq/Ly9TGGmbfS1pKe54jI=;
b=i/2ecU4EEe+UOu/k6bR4NElia5R4xckPOrtZp3WCQCmEDn/bRxCzUgMEeCuwp5m0tC
C62LGeB/FQJ4dx/maCUo5LDyeW6SXc7+/CfO0LydDV+oUAv4xN4oI2EZ35NdruIHWg7l
LvB0orJHiwADggbGFgv1sDcI9YZ4LeeVBLv313zAbFiyBgGy9QZQ7o4kJxVjLCLffGXR
CiwjBfdMDP/sV7p0XF12zp5YNO/HO1C0a8aUW5dnAlknJNHA+x7jIQnLfFJXf9ixxCZr
SMy1hhy+2hvKYTvlCVekIctEJ4BG9X5K3mMyOGIlC2bKXMK43rk0m0oijjlLGGdqyZwY
H2Hg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
:message-id:references:to;
bh=Fg7siHAPKFIpTZbq0UXPxkGq/Ly9TGGmbfS1pKe54jI=;
b=YZ3hy0e+dbUyqjj00cJ9ezdLFZ1FbTSZL8ADorJmntNZlFk7Ej+T0S1l9hMCZLxRyQ
EhMc/1lxQ/OWGzHS8Y9bNRJkhq2ZqkZsh5nQbhxuOf/I4sK5kaWWKb9AuiXsYbZs8NRE
vXdIkP77hb/X/0IeEmiet7mpID9kdgRWXmN484R0JOQpJzW1M9b/rki3WuewxUGUVjAR
aMCHo1F4bnMuhP+hMcM288COUccMeWF6RLlEMZd88UbFXpx1cwD8N9ei2hk7CBNIlo2x
4nGQ/7ZONoK9gy6ky08LqHTh36TACcEVujwMZcZ8T3QWcbvVfYM0dJZRZt9nxC1+rmHD
9wvw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOyzlFlz27PZy64k/JnvOumm7AP9EsyoJMShB2Cpb/RZ58kBmcHD
B0OGrdYr9TdVVQ==
X-Received: by 10.98.153.135 with SMTP id t7mr1446591pfk.160.1497467065062;
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.249.10] ([180.166.55.198])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
y29sm1290072pff.50.2017.06.14.12.04.23
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_E8674C1B-2684-4711-8781-D566241AD8C8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.0 \(3431\))
From: Zheming Lin <heater@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADL_X_e0wuKTUbAiYyuDuk74+DQ98j1kkmBPz5c5RjU4R7RB3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 03:04:21 +0800
Message-Id: <FED03D2A-D9EE-4C65-80D9-60124386085C@gmail.com>
References: <A6AE8145-8C8A-44C2-88D3-8574D895AF6B@gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgT=0k0NJWsO_TtBRTi2VqZtzuT1d1Sk+KZ2+2PUcA71tg@mail.gmail.com>
<A5275580-0EA3-4021-8E4E-55E214BCEECB@gmail.com>
<CADL_X_fdZG50HHb3iOePrzuOwU55tAqP80u3--xXEDWBKL7=jg@mail.gmail.com>
<31040BE1-64ED-4D05-BCBE-E80BC7B9A182@gmail.com>
<CADL_X_e0wuKTUbAiYyuDuk74+DQ98j1kkmBPz5c5RjU4R7RB3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jameson Lopp <jameson.lopp@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3431)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,FREEMAIL_REPLY,HTML_MESSAGE,
MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 19:24:06 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Demonstration of Phase in Full Network
Upgrade Activated by Miners
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 19:04:29 -0000
--Apple-Mail=_E8674C1B-2684-4711-8781-D566241AD8C8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=gb2312
Hi Jameson:
> =D4=DA 2017=C4=EA6=D4=C215=C8=D5=A3=AC02:55=A3=ACJameson Lopp =
<jameson.lopp@gmail.com> =D0=B4=B5=C0=A3=BA
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Zheming Lin <heater@gmail.com =
<mailto:heater@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi Jameson:
>=20
>> =D4=DA 2017=C4=EA6=D4=C215=C8=D5=A3=AC01:20=A3=ACJameson Lopp =
<jameson.lopp@gmail.com <mailto:jameson.lopp@gmail.com>> =D0=B4=B5=C0=A3=BA=
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Zheming Lin via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>> > =D4=DA 2017=C4=EA6=D4=C214=C8=D5=A3=AC02:11=A3=ACGregory Maxwell =
<greg@xiph.org <mailto:greg@xiph.org>> =D0=B4=B5=C0=A3=BA
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:23 AM, Zheming Lin via bitcoin-dev
>> > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org =
<mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>=20
>> > The enforcement of the system's rules by users broadly, and not =
just
>> > miners, is specifically described in the white paper (section 8,
>> > paragraph 2, it especially clear in the last sentence). This is
>> > critical for the security of Bitcoin especially with the current
>> > degree of centralization in pools. Without it, Bitcoin's security
>> > would look a lot more like the Ripple system.
>> >
>>=20
>> =CA=C7=B5=C4=A3=AC=D3=C3=BB=A7=D3=C0=D4=B6=B6=BC=D3=D0=D1=A1=D4=F1=A3=AC=
=B2=A2=BF=C9=D2=D4=C5=D7=C6=FA=C4=C7=D0=A9=BD=DA=B5=E3=A1=A3=D5=E2=B8=F6 =
BIP =
=B2=A2=C3=BB=D3=D0=B7=B4=B6=D4=D5=E2=D0=A9=D3=C3=BB=A7=D5=E2=C3=B4=D7=F6=A1=
=A3=D6=BB=D3=D0=C4=C7=D0=A9=B1=BB=B6=AF=B5=C4=C7=AE=B0=FC=D3=C3=BB=A7=A3=AC=
=CB=FB=C3=C7=D0=E8=D2=AA=D6=AA=B5=C0=B1=D8=D0=EB=D7=F6=B3=F6=D2=BB=B8=F6=D1=
=A1=D4=F1=A1=A3=A3=A8=B6=F8=B2=BB=CA=C7=B1=BB=B6=AF=B5=C4=B8=FA=CB=E6=C4=AC=
=C8=CF=B5=C4=B2=DF=C2=D4=A3=A9
>> Yes, users always have choice that they can abandon the nodes. This =
BIP does=A1=AFt go against them. I mean only the one(especially wallets) =
that=A1=AFs passive, they need to know there=A1=AFs a choice and pick =
one.
>>=20
>> =D5=E2=B8=F6 BIP =
=BF=C9=D2=D4=B1=BB=D3=A6=D3=C3=D3=DA=BC=B8=BA=F5=C8=CE=BA=CE=B5=C4=C9=FD=BC=
=B6=C9=CF=A3=AC=B0=FC=C0=A8=B8=F4=C0=EB=BC=FB=D6=A4=A3=AC=C1=BD=D5=D7=B5=C4=
=B8=F4=C0=EB=BC=FB=D6=A4=A3=AC=C1=BD=D5=D7=C0=A9=C8=DD=A3=AC=D3=BF=CF=D6=B9=
=B2=CA=B6=A3=AC=B0=CB=D5=D7=C0=A9=C8=DD=B5=C8=A1=A3=B5=AB=D5=E2=D0=A9=C9=FD=
=BC=B6=B2=A2=B2=BB=CA=C7=D6=D8=B5=E3=A1=A3
>> This BIP can be applied to almost any upgrade, including Segwit, =
Segwit2x, 2m, ec, 8m=A1=AD but the upgrade is not the key point.
>>=20
>> =B5=BD=B5=D7=CE=D2=C3=C7=B5=C4=D3=C3=BB=A7=CA=C7=B7=F1=D5=E6=B5=C4=D3=B5=
=D3=D0=D1=A1=D4=F1=A3=BF
>> Did the users have any real choice?
>>=20
>> =
=CE=D2=B2=A2=B2=BB=C4=DC=C0=ED=BD=E2=CB=FB=C3=C7=CF=E0=D0=C5=B4=F3=B2=BF=B7=
=D6=BF=F3=B9=A4=A3=A8=BE=CD=CF=F1=B5=B1=C7=B0=D2=BB=D1=F9=A3=A9=A3=AC=B5=AB=
=BE=DC=BE=F8=D5=E2=D0=A9=B6=E0=CA=FD=BF=F3=B9=A4=B6=D4=D0=AD=D2=E9=B8=C4=B1=
=E4=B5=C4=CD=B6=C6=B1=BD=E1=B9=FB=A1=A3
>> I don=A1=AFt see the reason they trust the majority miners(as they do =
today) but refuse the vote for upcoming protocol upgrade.
>>=20
>> To be clear, Bitcoin is not a democracy - if you find yourself using =
the term "voting" then you may be misunderstanding how consensus forms. =
Once a feature has been vetted and the code is deployed, miners may =
signal that they are ready to enforce new rules. If for some reason =
miners are too "passive or lazy" or wish to "veto" the activation of the =
new rules, users may choose to circumvent said veto by refusing to =
accept blocks that do not show readiness for enforcing the new rules.
>=20
> How does the users show their opinion? They can fork away and leave. =
But what remains will be united. Are you afraid of the united users or =
the fork?
>=20
> I agree with you that the =A1=B0vote=A1=B1 is not accurate. Could you =
kindly suggest an other word for that?
>=20
> I think users should have choice to follow the miners or not. Do you =
agree with this or not?
>=20
> Regarding consensus changes, users can voice their opinion on any =
number of communication platforms. Though if you're looking for a way =
for users to signal their intentions at the protocol level, every =
proposal for doing that to date has been arguably flawed. Measuring =
meatspace consensus is pretty tricky if not completely impossible, =
especially given the fact that the vast majority of Bitcoin users do not =
voice any opinions on the matter of consensus rules.
>=20
=A1=B0Sybil attack=A1=B1. The genuine node will leave the chain if it =
doesn=A1=AFt like the change. That=A1=AFs what restrain the majority =
miners acting foolishly.
If the users like the idea, they follow. If they don=A1=AFt the fork =
away(and not afraid of replay attack). I think it=A1=AFs a way to move =
forward together.=20
Would you support the idea that we put the choice to the users to =
decide?
> Most attempts at measuring user consensus would probably be best =
described as signaling rather than voting given that the act of doing so =
has no actual power to affect consensus. Every user who runs a fully =
validating node is free to enforce the rules with which the agree =
regardless of what rules other entities are enforcing.=20
>> =20
>>=20
>> =
=B6=D4=C7=AE=B0=FC=D3=C3=BB=A7=B5=C4=D1=A1=D4=F1=A3=AC=CA=C7=CB=FB=C3=C7=CA=
=C7=B7=F1=CF=E0=D0=C5=B6=E0=CA=FD=BF=F3=B9=A4=A1=A3=C8=E7=B9=FB=CB=FB=C3=C7=
=B2=BB=CF=E0=D0=C5=A3=AC=BF=C9=D2=D4=CD=A8=B9=FD=B7=D6=B2=E6=C0=B4=CF=FB=B3=
=FD=B5=F4=BF=F3=B9=A4=A1=A3
>> This choice for wallet users right now, is wether to follow the 51% =
majority miners. If they don=A1=AFt, they can have their fork that get =
rid of miners.
>>=20
>> =C8=E7=B9=FB=CB=FB=C3=C7=C8=D4=BE=C9=CF=E0=D0=C5=BF=F3=B9=A4=A3=AC=C4=C7=
=C3=B4=BF=C9=D2=D4=C1=F4=CF=C2=C0=B4=B2=A2=B8=FA=CB=E6=BF=F3=B9=A4=BD=AB=C0=
=B4=B5=C4=D0=AD=D2=E9=B8=C4=B1=E4=A1=A3
>> If they do trust the majority miners, they stay and follow the vote =
for upcoming protocol upgrade.
>>=20
>> =
=CB=F9=D2=D4=CE=CA=CC=E2=D4=DA=D3=DA=A3=BA=B1=C8=CC=D8=B1=D2=B5=C4=BF=AA=B7=
=A2=D5=DF=A1=A2=D3=C3=BB=A7=A1=A2=D3=B5=D3=D0=D5=DF=A1=A2=B7=FE=CE=F1=CC=E1=
=B9=A9=D5=DF=A1=A2=C9=F5=D6=C1=BF=F3=B9=A4=A3=AC=CA=C7=B7=F1=A3=A8=C8=D4=C8=
=BB=A3=A9=C8=E7=B0=D7=C6=A4=CA=E9=D6=D0=C3=E8=CA=F6=B5=C4=B6=D4=B4=F3=B6=E0=
=CA=FD=BF=F3=B9=A4=D3=B5=D3=D0=D0=C5=C8=CE=A1=A3
>> So the questions is: Do the bitcoin developers, users, holders, =
service provides, even miners, (still) have faith in the majority of =
miners as designed in the white paper?
>>=20
>> =20
>> There is a fundamental misconception regarding this point - the white =
paper refers to majority hashpower needing to be honest with regard to =
determining the correct chain within the context of many possible =
/valid/ chain forks. It is not referring to using hashpower to determine =
the correct chain amongst an infinitely variable number of currently =
invalid chain forks. Bitcoin ecosystem participants should not have =
faith in miners (or any other entity) when it comes to choosing the =
consensus rules they wish to enforce.
>>=20
>=20
> Arrrgh. I think in the BIP, the miners just invalids tx version 1 =
temporarily. That=A1=AFs a =A1=B0soft fork=A1=B1 right? If they dislike =
the idea, they can leave as always.
>=20
> =46rom my understanding, if the only change miners make is to stop =
confirming transactions that have a version less than X then it should =
be a soft fork, yes.=20
And if we add a version 2 valid, does that still be a =A1=B0soft fork=A1=B1=
?
Regards,
LIN Zheming=
--Apple-Mail=_E8674C1B-2684-4711-8781-D566241AD8C8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=gb2312
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dgb2312"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=3D"">Hi =
Jameson:<br class=3D""><div><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" =
class=3D""><div class=3D"">=D4=DA 2017=C4=EA6=D4=C215=C8=D5=A3=AC02:55=A3=AC=
Jameson Lopp <<a href=3D"mailto:jameson.lopp@gmail.com" =
class=3D"">jameson.lopp@gmail.com</a>> =D0=B4=B5=C0=A3=BA</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><br style=3D"font-family: Helvetica; =
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; =
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; =
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; =
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=3D""><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; =
font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; =
letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; =
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:29 AM, =
Zheming Lin<span class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> </span><span =
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><<a href=3D"mailto:heater@gmail.com" =
target=3D"_blank" class=3D"">heater@gmail.com</a>></span><span =
class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> </span>wrote:<br =
class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0px 0px =
0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; =
border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div =
style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; line-break: after-white-space;" =
class=3D""><div style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; line-break: =
after-white-space;" class=3D"">Hi Jameson:<br class=3D""><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><span =
class=3D""><div class=3D"">=D4=DA 2017=C4=EA6=D4=C215=C8=D5=A3=AC01:20=A3=AC=
Jameson Lopp <<a href=3D"mailto:jameson.lopp@gmail.com" =
target=3D"_blank" class=3D"">jameson.lopp@gmail.com</a>> =
=D0=B4=B5=C0=A3=BA</div><br =
class=3D"m_4937264445905329853Apple-interchange-newline"></span><div =
class=3D""><br =
class=3D"m_4937264445905329853Apple-interchange-newline"><br =
style=3D"font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; =
font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; =
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: =
normal; word-spacing: 0px;" class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_quote" =
style=3D"font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; =
font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; =
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: =
normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span class=3D"">On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at =
9:39 AM, Zheming Lin via bitcoin-dev<span =
class=3D"m_4937264445905329853Apple-converted-space"> </span><span =
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><<a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@<wbr =
class=3D"">lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span><span =
class=3D"m_4937264445905329853Apple-converted-space"> </span>wro<wbr =
class=3D"">te:<br class=3D""></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" =
style=3D"margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; =
border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); =
padding-left: 1ex;"><span class=3D""><span class=3D""><br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">> =D4=DA 2017=C4=EA6=D4=C214=C8=D5=A3=AC02:11=A3=ACGregory =
Maxwell <<a href=3D"mailto:greg@xiph.org" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">greg@xiph.org</a>> =D0=B4=B5=C0=A3=BA<br class=3D"">><br =
class=3D"">> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:23 AM, Zheming Lin via =
bitcoin-dev<br class=3D"">> <<a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr class=3D"">tion.org</a>> =
wrote:<br class=3D""></span></span><span class=3D""><span class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">> The enforcement of the system's rules by users broadly, =
and not just<br class=3D"">> miners, is specifically described in the =
white paper (section 8,<br class=3D"">> paragraph 2, it especially =
clear in the last sentence). This is<br class=3D"">> critical =
for the security of Bitcoin especially with the current<br class=3D"">>=
degree of centralization in pools. Without it, Bitcoin's =
security<br class=3D"">> would look a lot more like the Ripple =
system.<br class=3D"">><br class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></span>=CA=C7=B5=C4=A3=AC=D3=C3=BB=A7=D3=C0=D4=B6=B6=BC=D3=D0=D1=
=A1=D4=F1=A3=AC=B2=A2=BF=C9=D2=D4=C5=D7=C6=FA=C4=C7=D0=A9=BD=DA=B5=E3=A1=A3=
=D5=E2=B8=F6 BIP =
=B2=A2=C3=BB=D3=D0=B7=B4=B6=D4=D5=E2=D0=A9=D3=C3=BB=A7=D5=E2=C3=B4=D7=F6=A1=
=A3=D6=BB=D3=D0=C4=C7=D0=A9=B1=BB=B6=AF=B5=C4=C7=AE=B0=FC=D3=C3=BB=A7=A3=AC=
=CB=FB=C3=C7=D0=E8=D2=AA=D6=AA<wbr =
class=3D"">=B5=C0=B1=D8=D0=EB=D7=F6=B3=F6=D2=BB=B8=F6=D1=A1=D4=F1=A1=A3=A3=
=A8=B6=F8=B2=BB=CA=C7=B1=BB=B6=AF=B5=C4=B8=FA=CB=E6=C4=AC=C8=CF=B5=C4=B2=DF=
=C2=D4=A3=A9<br class=3D"">Yes, users always have choice that they can =
abandon the nodes. This BIP does=A1=AFt go against them. I mean only the =
one(especially wallets) that=A1=AFs passive, they need to know there=A1=AF=
s a choice and pick one.<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">=D5=E2=B8=F6 BIP =
=BF=C9=D2=D4=B1=BB=D3=A6=D3=C3=D3=DA=BC=B8=BA=F5=C8=CE=BA=CE=B5=C4=C9=FD=BC=
=B6=C9=CF=A3=AC=B0=FC=C0=A8=B8=F4=C0=EB=BC=FB=D6=A4=A3=AC=C1=BD=D5=D7=B5=C4=
=B8=F4=C0=EB=BC=FB=D6=A4=A3=AC<wbr =
class=3D"">=C1=BD=D5=D7=C0=A9=C8=DD=A3=AC=D3=BF=CF=D6=B9=B2=CA=B6=A3=AC=B0=
=CB=D5=D7=C0=A9=C8=DD=B5=C8=A1=A3=B5=AB=D5=E2=D0=A9=C9=FD=BC=B6=B2=A2=B2=BB=
=CA=C7=D6=D8=B5=E3=A1=A3<br class=3D"">This BIP can be applied to almost =
any upgrade, including Segwit, Segwit2x, 2m, ec, 8m=A1=AD but the =
upgrade is not the key point.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">=B5=BD=B5=D7=CE=D2=C3=C7=B5=C4=D3=C3=BB=A7=CA=C7=B7=F1=D5=E6=B5=
=C4=D3=B5=D3=D0=D1=A1=D4=F1=A3=BF<br class=3D"">Did the users have any =
real choice?<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">=CE=D2=B2=A2=B2=BB=C4=DC=C0=ED=BD=E2=CB=FB=C3=C7=CF=E0=D0=C5=B4=
=F3=B2=BF=B7=D6=BF=F3=B9=A4=A3=A8=BE=CD=CF=F1=B5=B1=C7=B0=D2=BB=D1=F9=A3=A9=
=A3=AC=B5=AB=BE=DC=BE=F8=D5=E2=D0=A9=B6=E0<wbr =
class=3D"">=CA=FD=BF=F3=B9=A4=B6=D4=D0=AD=D2=E9=B8=C4=B1=E4=B5=C4=CD=B6=C6=
=B1=BD=E1=B9=FB=A1=A3<br class=3D"">I don=A1=AFt see the reason they =
trust the majority miners(as they do today) but refuse the vote for =
upcoming protocol upgrade.<br class=3D""></span></blockquote><span =
class=3D""><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">To be =
clear, Bitcoin is not a democracy - if you find yourself using the term =
"voting" then you may be misunderstanding how consensus forms. Once a =
feature has been vetted and the code is deployed, miners may signal that =
they are ready to enforce new rules. If for some reason miners are too =
"passive or lazy" or wish to "veto" the activation of the new rules, =
users may choose to circumvent said veto by refusing to accept blocks =
that do not show readiness for enforcing the new =
rules.</div></span></div></div></blockquote><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">How does the users show their opinion? =
They can fork away and leave. But what remains will be united. Are you =
afraid of the united users or the fork?</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I agree with you that the =A1=B0vote=A1=B1=
is not accurate. Could you kindly suggest an other word for =
that?</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I think =
users should have choice to follow the miners or not. Do you agree with =
this or not?</div><span class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></span></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=3D"">Regarding=
consensus changes, users can voice their opinion on any number of =
communication platforms. Though if you're looking for a way for users to =
signal their intentions at the protocol level, every proposal for doing =
that to date has been arguably flawed. Measuring meatspace consensus is =
pretty tricky if not completely impossible, especially given the fact =
that the vast majority of Bitcoin users do not voice any opinions on the =
matter of consensus rules.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br =
class=3D""></div><div>=A1=B0Sybil attack=A1=B1. The genuine node will =
leave the chain if it doesn=A1=AFt like the change. That=A1=AFs what =
restrain the majority miners acting foolishly.</div><div><br =
class=3D""></div><div>If the users like the idea, they follow. If they =
don=A1=AFt the fork away(and not afraid of replay attack). I think it=A1=AF=
s a way to move forward together. </div><div><br =
class=3D""></div><div>Would you support the idea that we put the choice =
to the users to decide?</div><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" =
class=3D""><div class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_quote" =
style=3D"font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; =
font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; =
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: =
normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div =
class=3D"">Most attempts at measuring user consensus would probably be =
best described as signaling rather than voting given that the act of =
doing so has no actual power to affect consensus. Every user who runs a =
fully validating node is free to enforce the rules with which the agree =
regardless of what rules other entities are =
enforcing. </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: =
0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; =
border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div =
style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; line-break: after-white-space;" =
class=3D""><div style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; line-break: =
after-white-space;" class=3D""><div class=3D""><span =
class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; =
font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; =
letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; =
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><div =
class=3D""> </div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: =
0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; =
border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><br =
class=3D"">=B6=D4=C7=AE=B0=FC=D3=C3=BB=A7=B5=C4=D1=A1=D4=F1=A3=AC=CA=C7=CB=
=FB=C3=C7=CA=C7=B7=F1=CF=E0=D0=C5=B6=E0=CA=FD=BF=F3=B9=A4=A1=A3=C8=E7=B9=FB=
=CB=FB=C3=C7=B2=BB=CF=E0=D0=C5=A3=AC=BF=C9<wbr =
class=3D"">=D2=D4=CD=A8=B9=FD=B7=D6=B2=E6=C0=B4=CF=FB=B3=FD=B5=F4=BF=F3=B9=
=A4=A1=A3<br class=3D"">This choice for wallet users right now, is =
wether to follow the 51% majority miners. If they don=A1=AFt, they can =
have their fork that get rid of miners.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">=C8=E7=B9=FB=CB=FB=C3=C7=C8=D4=BE=C9=CF=E0=D0=C5=BF=F3=B9=A4=A3=
=AC=C4=C7=C3=B4=BF=C9=D2=D4=C1=F4=CF=C2=C0=B4=B2=A2=B8=FA=CB=E6=BF=F3=B9=A4=
=BD=AB=C0=B4=B5=C4=D0=AD=D2=E9=B8=C4=B1=E4<wbr class=3D"">=A1=A3<br =
class=3D"">If they do trust the majority miners, they stay and follow =
the vote for upcoming protocol upgrade.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">=CB=F9=D2=D4=CE=CA=CC=E2=D4=DA=D3=DA=A3=BA=B1=C8=CC=D8=B1=D2=B5=
=C4=BF=AA=B7=A2=D5=DF=A1=A2=D3=C3=BB=A7=A1=A2=D3=B5=D3=D0=D5=DF=A1=A2=B7=FE=
=CE=F1=CC=E1=B9=A9=D5=DF=A1=A2=C9=F5=D6=C1<wbr =
class=3D"">=BF=F3=B9=A4=A3=AC=CA=C7=B7=F1=A3=A8=C8=D4=C8=BB=A3=A9=C8=E7=B0=
=D7=C6=A4=CA=E9=D6=D0=C3=E8=CA=F6=B5=C4=B6=D4=B4=F3=B6=E0=CA=FD=BF=F3=B9=A4=
=D3=B5=D3=D0=D0=C5=C8=CE=A1=A3<br class=3D"">So the questions is: Do the =
bitcoin developers, users, holders, service provides, even miners, =
(still) have faith in the majority of miners as designed in the white =
paper?<br class=3D""><span class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></span></blockquote><div class=3D""> </div><div =
class=3D"">There is a fundamental misconception regarding this point - =
the white paper refers to majority hashpower needing to be honest with =
regard to determining the correct chain within the context of many =
possible /valid/ chain forks. It is not referring to using hashpower to =
determine the correct chain amongst an infinitely variable number of =
currently invalid chain forks. Bitcoin ecosystem participants should not =
have faith in miners (or any other entity) when it comes to choosing the =
consensus rules they wish to enforce.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div></span><div class=3D"">Arrrgh. I think in the BIP, the =
miners just invalids tx version 1 temporarily. That=A1=AFs a =A1=B0soft =
fork=A1=B1 right? If they dislike the idea, they can leave as =
always.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=3D"">=46rom =
my understanding, if the only change miners make is to stop confirming =
transactions that have a version less than X then it should be a soft =
fork, yes. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br =
class=3D""></div><div>And if we add a version 2 valid, does that still =
be a =A1=B0soft fork=A1=B1?</div></div><br class=3D""><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Regards,</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">LIN Zheming</div></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_E8674C1B-2684-4711-8781-D566241AD8C8--
|