Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91B52CA5 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 17:44:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io1-f45.google.com (mail-io1-f45.google.com [209.85.166.45]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC15AE5 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 17:44:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io1-f45.google.com with SMTP id t6so7813693ios.7 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:44:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=1ISep7Sot9Tgwv5EG6G3LBJmfRPA10ONL0Hu8g+GO8U=; b=P3tdyVOdDnjN8LLm9GadfI4TbQ9WwfUdGnwmwhUZG44X2aQ8sxG39uI/U+Y5S1VIh/ sShyBRxAmyrOydg3nrQm4PIrtV9IL9NYmC/ad//bMwLVj2czqzMCUOZE+B7D96qm118n 101LEzGhfHX0JKfWaRgT+rTfPL38wsO0s6UPIeV1Ljwno9aV+FCC7n4L5aru5ZHXFLH4 oRm0sha/jGmCX1RsF0Ei0FE3szHFrwIsui4YKuv3cwYgR5XBQv3jVbtSdipPc9thAeFn ma7kbI2IP3h40OoV6mqVZwqSBdeUXfTtE1BiW0zqjW1RWdniZb2AwqAn3DNuE2jL+mFX CeUA== 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 :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=1ISep7Sot9Tgwv5EG6G3LBJmfRPA10ONL0Hu8g+GO8U=; b=NspCISU8z7F1xRlrSfe7ZN3lJKPgi0RgP1J/ucBL+iNNeSu5zF+bTfXjt4lpFTVWgp PKnY1QdS7sFODh7OR6axptESJXEA9S9VaGDJc2K6wxDojFZ59GkNWv6q2QHfFwLqPSjr GdVAv8Bhkh43KlM0kEuw2r8qXvQT+3/lyx50Zt4VdSNYaRxKc28sl5ivJM8rC7iUvuIb XIRM5gA10NaHVs2E/CYmF1XKdaHvex2AdeK6yxSJLEMEo2muvwp3RoJ/vnwmFYdoP1Qe 5UwUIPJ8szTtAjDD9hcMmAn2Bf9a0utsCoPI4XhKrtOE0/jzNgxWUFpYx1ss5svh5Nxu V6wQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWRuf/sELwlDGZ6QM50q8WDqDeQAyHpgn9mt6Uk9qd/OaesJgA4 F9N80/8Gck2Y2k0XOjJW0Sq4rg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzbuDbhsp420Zb4MOOmzMCr2x/SYDwV2wnZSqIOZBIjXKWfcDcWOCet462jS/vZRkrndRedIg== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:8a10:: with SMTP id w16mr12306201iod.175.1565977489192; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:44:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.47.133.3] (mobile-166-170-27-131.mycingular.net. [166.170.27.131]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w6sm5812832iob.29.2019.08.16.10.44.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:44:48 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Eric Voskuil X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16F203) In-Reply-To: <20190816160650.artngylrzy2id5tr@petertodd.org> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 13:44:47 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2377A2C2-04E6-4128-A756-2909474C423C@voskuil.org> References: <20190816160650.artngylrzy2id5tr@petertodd.org> To: Peter Todd , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 19:33:23 +0000 Cc: John Newbery Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Burying CSV and segwit soft fork activations X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 17:44:50 -0000 Thanks for adding this to the record. And for the record I=E2=80=99ll reiterate here, as I did with BIP90, that th= is is a hard fork. e > On Aug 16, 2019, at 12:06, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: >=20 >> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:23:37AM -0400, John Newbery via bitcoin-dev wr= ote: >> Once a consensus change has been activated and buried by sufficient work,= >> we consider the height of that change to be historic fact. The exact >> activation method is no longer of practical interest. In some cases the >> cause of activation is not even decidable. For example, we know that segw= it >> activated at height 481,824 but it's debatable whether that was due to BI= P >> 9 version bits signaling, BIP 148 UASF, or a combination of the two. >=20 > I just wanted to elaborate on this excellent point: >=20 > This is debatable because Bitcoin is a decentralized, soft-forks are backw= ards > compatible, and it's very difficult if not impossible to measure the > preferences of economically significant nodes. Both the BIP9 version bits > signalling and the BIP 148 UASF had the same basic effect: enforce segwit.= > Furthermore, the BIP 148 UASF rejected blocks that didn't signal via the B= IP9 > version bits. >=20 > We can observe the fact that 100% of known blocks produced after Aug 1st 2= 017 > have complied with segwit rules, and the BIP9 signalling protocol for segw= it. > But strictly speaking we don't really know why that happened. It's possibl= e > that miners were running the BIP9 signalling Bitcoin Core release around t= hat > time. It's also possible that miners were running UASF enforcing software.= > It's possible there was a combination of both. Or even entirely different > software - remember that some miners produced segwit-valid blocks, but did= n't > actually mine segwit transactions. Each scenario leads to the same externa= lly > observable outcome. >=20 > Furthermore there's the question as to why miners were producing > segwit-compliant blocks: perhaps they thought the vast majority of economi= cally > significant nodes would reject their blocks? Perhaps they just wanted to > enforce segwit? >=20 > These are all questions that have plausible answers, backed by evidence an= d > argument. But because Bitcoin is a decentralized network no authority can t= ell > you what the answers are. >=20 > --=20 > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev