Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E5A0C002D for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:12:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1BBF40138 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:11:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zfanhVjmGKTq for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:11:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-wr1-x434.google.com (mail-wr1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::434]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84F99400AB for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:11:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-x434.google.com with SMTP id j15so8345590wrb.2 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 09:11:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9ZNZCietQkO/MpPejpi6YIV8tWazR/idZjaEdDwJpBM=; b=KovP7z1vTuToIl1RyD+AZBYQNozpYmTlpjwJ+ddI7ZsnEa0OJjmKGhH0lKpAI1mei1 5tSFW5Y99fin6FRs3TkSSxIp9PeI5Jv/6Z9JiZboFU1kMBaE6C9tlENFzOb107Y/0mNh mzX/5SrabPe4ShltA3JJsWFHFPzmPX9PrwcSxPlH567RLXwEkAEymhB7HVcEqJ9iU7Z4 /Q2tywY+UjQlECiHafP9YlwLtfRgusj8A80k/Czitda2PYQ6c9BRL4wPvEiig0C6qZHE q02YWq7YS15HZuoWOsM9dCC6Nw6ajP8jrSruTM7sz2Byd19D2TQBm06JMKZY3zkJR3T6 mKJA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9ZNZCietQkO/MpPejpi6YIV8tWazR/idZjaEdDwJpBM=; b=f08+86nFutx8Zm/ELeU1I4hPNqw237MBHexIQZVXTyfm2YHPTZrF/+dzKb4xGiCktG oe8EN5RYcDIIILSRN72wutrz44N+P6cR+WoXQB9+uPJ4LN7qlPdaOVwxyjZEsZYd2HVk jL/FmKHnfnCDW74wtCaxEBu/B6l8ETHndMV4pULIMHIcOpWAxeePBjORMiBl313Oux7z iyjXYQ1LGOp4NN5Uf6Zu/vaohkxgGc5z9DtqwFEsios0hnLlE/dgk4gLWn99dfkUcsj2 tBfIztfdg9ioS6crv/FXyn695YgtFEfGtb3D54MQrJrziNnUmka06B8EQEimO/hAvgB8 pCcg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530vydiXwuIkhfWbtzbkNn+MuXkVQMorWv2fXPD+So1yUz320ZuO W1IYj0sFXwtexQzerOEuFt/uDMryR46qheV4IGp8rs3fa8U= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw98Uaeb4e/AvMLsytaYbLNWXenJeCxaGJ39yRoOpWtrMxfq9rruVaWlyLnukIcAjFMonCHrIjAsdYWIwJHDXQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:508:b0:1e4:a027:d147 with SMTP id a8-20020a056000050800b001e4a027d147mr14654352wrf.315.1650903116527; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 09:11:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220315154549.GA7580@erisian.com.au> <20220322234951.GB11179@erisian.com.au> <20220326014546.GA12225@erisian.com.au> <20220330042106.GA13161@erisian.com.au> <20220411130522.GA3633@erisian.com.au> <20220424121429.GA7363@erisian.com.au> In-Reply-To: From: Keagan McClelland Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 10:11:45 -0600 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d1ba7305dd7cd5fc" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:12:58 +0000 Cc: Anthony Towns Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Speedy Trial X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:12:00 -0000 --000000000000d1ba7305dd7cd5fc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi AJ, > Under *any* other circumstance, when they're used to activate a bad soft fork, speedy trial and bip8 are the same. If a resistance method works against bip8, it works against speedy trial; if it fails against speedy trial, it fails against bip8. IIRC one essential difference between ST (which is a variant of BIP9) and BIP8 is that since there is no mandatory signaling during the lockin period, you can't do a counter soft fork as easily. This is one of the points that Luke mentioned to me that made clear the benefits of the mandatory signaling. A variant of ST that does require mandatory signaling may actually be something that can improve the process and give users a more effective means of forking away from SF changes that they reject. Keagan On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 12:58 PM Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 2:14 PM Anthony Towns wrote: > >> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 12:13:08PM +0100, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote: >> > You're not even considering user resistance in your cases. >> >> Of course I am. Again: >> > > No, you're relying on miners to stop bad proposals. > > >> > > My claim is that for *any* bad (evil, flawed, whatever) softfork, th= en >> > > attempting activation via bip8 is *never* superior to speedy trial, >> > > and in some cases is worse. >> > > >> > > If I'm missing something, you only need to work through a single >> example >> > > to demonstrate I'm wrong, which seems like it ought to be easy... Bu= t >> > > just saying "I disagree" and "I don't want to talk about that" isn't >> > > going to convince anyone. >> >> The "some cases" where bip8 with lot=3Dtrue is *worse* than speedy trial >> is when miners correctly see that a bad fork is bad. >> >> Under *any* other circumstance, when they're used to activate a bad soft >> fork, speedy trial and bip8 are the same. If a resistance method works >> against bip8, it works against speedy trial; if it fails against speedy >> trial, it fails against bip8. >> > > You're wrong. > > >> > Sorry for the aggressive tone, but I when people ignore some of my >> points >> > repeteadly, I start to wonder if they do it on purpose. >> >> Perhaps examine the beam in your own eye. >> > > Yeah, whether you do that yourself or not: sorry, it's over. > > >> Cheers, >> aj >> > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --000000000000d1ba7305dd7cd5fc Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi AJ,

> Under *any* other cir= cumstance, when they're used to activate a bad soft
fork, speedy tri= al and bip8 are the same. If a resistance method works
against bip8, it = works against speedy trial; if it fails against speedy
trial, it fails a= gainst bip8.

IIRC one essential difference between ST (w= hich is a variant of BIP9) and BIP8 is that since there is no mandatory sig= naling during the lockin period, you can't do a counter soft fork as ea= sily. This is one of the points that Luke mentioned to me that made clear t= he benefits of the mandatory signaling. A variant of ST that does require m= andatory signaling may actually be something that can improve the process a= nd give users a more effective means of forking away from SF changes that t= hey reject.

Keagan

On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 12= :58 PM Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wro= te:


On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 2:14 PM Anthony Towns <= ;aj@erisian.com.au> wrote:
On= Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 12:13:08PM +0100, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote:
> You're not even considering user resistance in your cases.

Of course I am. Again:

> > My claim is that for *any* bad (evil, flawed, whatever) softfork,= then
> > attempting activation via bip8 is *never* superior to speedy tria= l,
> > and in some cases is worse.
> >
> > If I'm missing something, you only need to work through a sin= gle example
> > to demonstrate I'm wrong, which seems like it ought to be eas= y... But
> > just saying "I disagree" and "I don't want to = talk about that" isn't
> > going to convince anyone.

The "some cases" where bip8 with lot=3Dtrue is *worse* than speed= y trial
is when miners correctly see that a bad fork is bad.

Under *any* other circumstance, when they're used to activate a bad sof= t
fork, speedy trial and bip8 are the same. If a resistance method works
against bip8, it works against speedy trial; if it fails against speedy
trial, it fails against bip8.

> Sorry for the aggressive tone, but I when people ignore some of my poi= nts
> repeteadly, I start to wonder if they do it on purpose.

Perhaps examine the beam in your own eye.

Yeah, whether you do that yourself or not: sorry, it's over.
=C2=A0
Cheers,
aj
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000d1ba7305dd7cd5fc--