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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DE25C002F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:10:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6523D60A99
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:10:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.217
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.217 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.117,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dashjr.org
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id oj8pnsOPR4x5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:10:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 405D260A88
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:10:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.lan (unknown [12.151.133.18])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2918838A1D95;
Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:09:47 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan;
t=1642543801; bh=HxXvs57O6Bh1oLMo75KomuPMXHo9S9NHZyWV6Qcqzsw=;
h=From:To:Subject:Date:Cc:References:In-Reply-To;
b=X76HCS6+OiHeBOp8gf7wWz9Sq4iW4DVR7Fyq/d3Y6tYpH6Cfj9RV3qMScsX+fDDo/
5I3qxEB3qzSZ8cD4BLbnzF7wW0Scx5opYqXqlG/YIm3/m+pjxlJm3MnRDSTfo27ieH
mlPNmDhE+Xu6EQXcHnsKgDxBoGBoJbNPbfrIDcNo=
X-Hashcash: 1:25:220118:eric@voskuil.org::J7NlJQ9ErWFandHW:8C5z
X-Hashcash: 1:25:220118:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::1WIppBJhKy9BnIsg:asKuE
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: eric@voskuil.org
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:09:45 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
References: <202201182119.02687.luke@dashjr.org>
<02cc01d80cb7$1339c050$39ad40f0$@voskuil.org>
In-Reply-To: <02cc01d80cb7$1339c050$39ad40f0$@voskuil.org>
X-KMail-QuotePrefix: >
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <202201182209.46044.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: 'Bitcoin Protocol Discussion' <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:10:03 -0000
On Tuesday 18 January 2022 22:02:24 eric@voskuil.org wrote:
> The only material distinction between BIP9 and BIP8 is that the latter may
> activate without signaled support of hash power enforcement.
>
> As unenforced soft forks are not "backward compatible" they produce a chain
> split.
Enforcement of the Bitcoin consensus protocol is by users, not miners.
Softforks never produce a chain split. Miners can, and might try to do it to
cause disruption in retaliation, but the softfork itself does not.
> It was for this reason alone that BIP8 never gained sufficient
> support.
BIP 8 in fact achieved consensus for Taproot activation.
> This is one of the most misleading statements I've seen here. It's not
> technically a lie, because it states what "should" happen. But it is
> clearly intended to lead people to believe that BIP8 was actually used
> ("again") - it was not. ST was some technical tweaks to BIP9.
BIP 8 was used to activate Taproot.
> The outright deception around this one topic has led to significant
> unnecessary conflict in the community. Make your argument, but make it
> honestly.
You are the one attempting to deceive here.
Luke
|
