MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPWm=eV2aLJKMM_5T-jaXCm1umRFxy+vfirBqCGAvUKHtOphQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5b9ba6c4-6d8f-9c0b-2420-2be6c30f87b5@cannon-ciota.info>
	<35ba77db-f95a-4517-c960-8ad42a633ba0@gmail.com>
	<f4849cef-3c40-31a4-e323-6a731bb52bc2@cannon-ciota.info>
	<9C2A6867-470D-4336-8439-17F4E0CA4B17@gmx.com>
	<CAPWm=eV2aLJKMM_5T-jaXCm1umRFxy+vfirBqCGAvUKHtOphQg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Pacia <ctpacia@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 05:13:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CAB+qUq47LUCSNUPZRY=ROrrHH5a6SLYrhwBs4msjWJt9ArUwpA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Morcos <morcos@gmail.com>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11470b7431844e054b9ea334
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Defending against empty or near empty blocks from
 malicious miner takeover?
Precedence: list

--001a11470b7431844e054b9ea334
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mar 25, 2017 10:38 PM, "Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:


As a Bitcoin user I find it abhorrent the way you are proposing to
intentionally cripple the chain and rules I want to use instead of just
peacefully splitting.


I just want to point out what appears to be doublespeak going on here.

First, I think it would seem obvious to an observer that a sizable portion
of the community (certainly greater than 5%) view segwit as preventing
"rules I want to use instead of just peacefully splitting" but no
consideration was given to these people when designing segwit as a
softfork. I believe it was Luke who went as far as saying consensus does
not matter when it comes softforks.

Furthermore, when segwit was first introduced it kicked off a round of
softfork/hardfork debate which I participated in. The primary concern that
I and other raised was precisely what is going on now.. that miners could
unilaterally impose an unpopular change to the protocol rules.

At the time I told, rather forcefully, by multiple people that miners have
an "absolute right" to softfork in whatever rules they want. Which, of
course, is absurd on it's face.

But I don't see how people can make such claims on the one hand, and then
complain when this process is used against them.

It amounts to nothing more than "When it's rules I like we get to impose
them on non-consenting users. When it's rules I don't like it's an attack
on the network".

It was completely obvious this entire time that softforks were a very
slippery slope, now we are indeed sliding down that slope.

--001a11470b7431844e054b9ea334
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><br><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote">On Mar 25, 2017 10:38 PM, &quot;Alex Morcos via bitcoin-d=
ev&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitco=
in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<blockquote class=3D"quote" =
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><di=
v dir=3D"ltr"><div><br></div><div>As a Bitcoin user I find it abhorrent the=
 way you are proposing to intentionally cripple the chain and rules I want =
to use instead of just peacefully splitting.</div></div></blockquote></div>=
</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">I just want to point ou=
t what appears to be doublespeak going on here.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto=
"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">First, I think it would seem obvious to an ob=
server that a sizable portion of the community (certainly greater than 5%) =
view segwit as preventing &quot;rules I want to use instead of just peacefu=
lly splitting&quot; but no consideration was given to these people when des=
igning segwit as a softfork. I believe it was Luke who went as far as sayin=
g consensus does not matter when it comes softforks.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D=
"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Furthermore, when segwit was first intro=
duced it kicked off a round of softfork/hardfork debate which I participate=
d in. The primary concern that I and other raised was precisely what is goi=
ng on now.. that miners could unilaterally impose an unpopular change to th=
e protocol rules.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">=
At the time I told, rather forcefully, by multiple people that miners have =
an &quot;absolute right&quot; to softfork in whatever rules they want. Whic=
h, of course, is absurd on it&#39;s face.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div>=
<div dir=3D"auto">But I don&#39;t see how people can make such claims on th=
e one hand, and then complain when this process is used against them.</div>=
<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">It amounts to nothing more th=
an &quot;When it&#39;s rules I like we get to impose them on non-consenting=
 users. When it&#39;s rules I don&#39;t like it&#39;s an attack on the netw=
ork&quot;.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">It was =
completely obvious this entire time that softforks were a very slippery slo=
pe, now we are indeed sliding down that slope.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"=
><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"au=
to"></div></div>

--001a11470b7431844e054b9ea334--