MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 19:12:19 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMZUoKkTDjDSgnqhYio8Lnh-yTdsNAdXbDC9RQwnN00RdbbL6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bfd17a05d9e62ffc"
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Speedy Trial
Precedence: list

--000000000000bfd17a05d9e62ffc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu., Mar. 10, 2022, 08:04 Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev, <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

>
>
> You're right, we shouldn't get personal. We shouldn't ignore feedback fro=
m
> me, mark friedenbach or luke just because of who it comes from.
>

For goodness sake Jorge, enough with the persecution complex.

As the person who initially proposed the Speedy Trial deployment design, I
can say it was designed to take in account those concerns raised by luke-jr
and the "no-miner-veto" faction.  I also listened to the
"devs-do-not-decide" faction and the "no-divegent-consensus-rules" faction
and their concerns.

The "no-miner-veto" concerns are, to an extent, addressed by the short
timeline of Speedy Trial.  No more waiting 2 years on the miners dragging
their feet.  If ST fails to active then we are back where we started with
at most a few weeks lost.  And those weeks aren't really lost if they would
have been wasted away anyways trying to find broad consensus on another
deployment mechanism.

I get that you don't like the design of Speedy Trial.  You may even object
that it fails to really address your concerns by leaving open how to follow
up a failed Speedy Trial deployment.  But regardless of how you feel, I
believe I did meaningfully address the those miner-veto concerns and other
people agree with me.

If you are so concerned about listening to legitimate criticism, maybe you
can design a new deployment mechanism that addresses the concerns of the
"devs-do-not-decide" faction and the "no-divegent-consensus-rules"
faction.  Or do you feel that their concerns are illegitimate?  Maybe, by
sheer coincidence, all people you disagree with have illegitimate concerns
while only your concerns are legitimate.

A major contender to the Speedy Trial design at the time was to mandate
eventual forced signalling, championed by luke-jr.  It turns out that, at
the time of that proposal, a large amount of hash power simply did not have
the firmware required to support signalling.  That activation proposal
never got broad consensus, and rightly so, because in retrospect we see
that the design might have risked knocking a significant fraction of mining
power offline if it had been deployed.  Imagine if the firmware couldn't be
quickly updated or imagine if the problem had been hardware related.

--000000000000bfd17a05d9e62ffc
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote" dir=3D"auto"><div dir=3D"l=
tr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu., Mar. 10, 2022, 08:04 Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via=
 bitcoin-dev, &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" =
rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer no=
referrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.or=
g</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin=
:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto">=
<div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div=
><div dir=3D"auto">You&#39;re right, we shouldn&#39;t get personal. We shou=
ldn&#39;t ignore feedback from me, mark friedenbach or luke just because of=
 who it comes from.</div></div></blockquote></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></d=
iv><div dir=3D"auto">For goodness sake Jorge, enough with the persecution c=
omplex.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">As the person wh=
o initially proposed the Speedy Trial deployment design, I can say it was d=
esigned to take in account those concerns raised by luke-jr and the &quot;n=
o-miner-veto&quot; faction.=C2=A0 I also listened to the &quot;devs-do-not-=
decide&quot; faction and the &quot;no-divegent-consensus-rules&quot; factio=
n and their concerns.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Th=
e &quot;no-miner-veto&quot; concerns are, to an extent, addressed by the sh=
ort timeline of Speedy Trial.=C2=A0 No more waiting 2 years on the miners d=
ragging their feet.=C2=A0 If ST fails to active then we are back where we s=
tarted with at most a few weeks lost.=C2=A0 And those weeks aren&#39;t real=
ly lost if they would have been wasted away anyways trying to find broad co=
nsensus on another deployment mechanism.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><=
div dir=3D"auto">I get that you don&#39;t like the design of Speedy Trial.=
=C2=A0 You may even object that it fails to really address your concerns by=
 leaving open how to follow up a failed Speedy Trial deployment.=C2=A0 But =
regardless of how you feel, I believe I did meaningfully address the those =
miner-veto concerns and other people agree with me.</div><div dir=3D"auto">=
<br></div><div dir=3D"auto">If you are so concerned about listening to legi=
timate criticism, maybe you can design a new deployment mechanism that addr=
esses the concerns of the &quot;devs-do-not-decide&quot; faction and the &q=
uot;no-divegent-consensus-rules&quot; faction.=C2=A0 Or do you feel that th=
eir concerns are illegitimate?=C2=A0 Maybe, by sheer coincidence, all peopl=
e you disagree with have illegitimate concerns while only your concerns are=
 legitimate.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">A major con=
tender to the Speedy Trial design at the time was to mandate eventual force=
d signalling, championed by luke-jr.=C2=A0 It turns out that, at the time o=
f that proposal, a large amount of hash power simply did not have the firmw=
are required to support signalling.=C2=A0 That activation proposal never go=
t broad consensus, and rightly so, because in retrospect we see that the de=
sign might have risked knocking a significant fraction of mining power offl=
ine if it had been deployed.=C2=A0 Imagine if the firmware couldn&#39;t be =
quickly updated or imagine if the problem had been hardware related.</div><=
div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote" dir=3D"auto"></div></=
div>

--000000000000bfd17a05d9e62ffc--