Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E1126C for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:39:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pf0-f193.google.com (mail-pf0-f193.google.com [209.85.192.193]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B969198 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:39:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf0-f193.google.com with SMTP id d5so755891pfe.1 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:39:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=w0oSYHPilvpa9P2YqnIhtkqvyAzCHEkRYkkWt3k7OhA=; b=GS3AM3/Q6xSdIx3QWiQJFaMChXgT0bVQTU5hAbw74tYq8BzseLGRDjsemXM7w5UyBX 0RW45g/mR673Vafw7DeIrAUVHntOT9O5xgUs4tNUM+db7fKVtBJotkX9IYiM/5r03DDf cRyLukMY+RHeTSVAcsKQFdeKHMXrr9cSp5cuAuzTorQYwkN2T25Y3BGY9HuLPVphCVKX kqEBV2zxc5WpTTCrBd508kz8PHbyXlG9K8y2IOBAWRFc5X+Z8AfyLa3hzSF9c8L0xPYy vgL6zfJHX2N0GoIrMh9bi+acgq4yhhRz1QDbmcCirqXvk1i8sicEswjqUVYK3eZlB+PY QA/g== 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=w0oSYHPilvpa9P2YqnIhtkqvyAzCHEkRYkkWt3k7OhA=; b=PGc3cjufKgycBQhmEN5lUe/ID3xKfiMPBvQG5vua27WqK1rnOU9286T+3bMTB13a/3 4N7q0Wdez3eO7S2loW5QjUrmOesBHbaq/9QSyO1SppIdt9dN0m5TjHkkl7eHDcERGFsR CUFVOdd5rJxmLHuUf7LRMIAlI93ZkjTf04ZY1J4FDFh2C+czCnRCEpQIepBUaERfHAl3 X0wSStuE9c/Mm4gSaUuj7WWR1ujzW7S8f1f76tQFQH7AQU/GiUeBPUjdFcjgW+RV8gqZ BPN8XvhDHtV6346p8MsDXyJGPx+Ud3yaBQ/HfNiSFCwiLB5/X8+b5PuE7yqsD5yoUU6c AKZA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOy1dwdB/HlL1ooIvanqrPjlegcQq67/wnNhR4e1S0aLw95ZBBEb LFCsgG1V2oll0A== X-Received: by 10.84.231.134 with SMTP id g6mr1072818plk.86.1497458387510; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:39:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.249.10] ([180.166.55.198]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h14sm1053093pfh.71.2017.06.14.09.39.45 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:39:46 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.0 \(3431\)) From: Zheming Lin In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:39:42 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Gregory Maxwell X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3431) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:57:43 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Demonstration of Phase in Full Network Upgrade Activated by Miners 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: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:39:52 -0000 > =D4=DA 2017=C4=EA6=D4=C214=C8=D5=A3=AC02:11=A3=ACGregory Maxwell = =D0=B4=B5=C0=A3=BA >=20 > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:23 AM, Zheming Lin via bitcoin-dev > wrote: >> The BIP is described using Chinese and English. If any part is = missing or need more specific, please reply. Forgive for my poor = English. >=20 > Your English is much better than my Chinese. Thank you for taking the > time to write this. >=20 > I am still reading and trying to completely understand your proposal > but I wanted to make one observation: >=20 >> = =BC=F8=D3=DA=D7=EE=B3=F5=B5=C4=B1=C8=CC=D8=B1=D2=D0=AD=D2=E9=B2=A2=CE=B4=BF= =BC=C2=C7=B2=BB=B2=CE=D3=EB=CD=DA=BF=F3=B5=C4=C7=AE=B0=FC=BD=DA=B5=E3=A3=AC= =B5=BC=D6=C2=D5=E2=D0=A9=C7=AE=B0=FC=BD=DA=B5=E3=B5=C4=D0=AD=D2=E9=C9=FD=BC= =B6=CA=C7=B1=BB=B6=AF=B5=C4=A3=AC=C0=C1=B6=E8=B5=C4=A1=A3=B5=B1=D4=DA=C9=FD= =BC=B6=B7=BD=CF=F2=C9=CF=B3=F6=CF=D6=B7=D6=C6=E7=CA=B1=A3=AC=BF=F3=B9=A4=D2= =B2=B2=BB=D4=B8=D2=E2=D4=DA=B4=ED=CE=F3=B5=C4=C1=B4=C9=CF=CD=DA=BF=F3=A3=AC= =B5=AB=BF=F3=B9=A4=D3=D6=C3=BB=D3=D0=C8=CE=BA=CE=B7=BD=B7=A8=BF=C9=D2=D4=C8= =B7=B1=A3=D5=FD=D4=DA=D1=D3=B3=A4=B5=C4=C1=B4=CA=C7=B1=BB=C7=AE=B0=FC=BD=DA= =B5=E3=B9=E3=B7=BA=BD=D3=CA=DC=B5=C4=C1=B4=A1=A3=D5=E2=BD=AB=D3=B0=CF=EC=C7= =AE=B0=FC=BD=DA=B5=E3=B5=C4=B0=B2=C8=AB=A1=A3
>> In view of the fact that the original Bitcoin consensus did not = consider the non-mining wallet nodes(as mentioned above), the result is = that upgrading the consensus of these wallet nodes is passive and lazy. >=20 > This is not true. Non-mining wallet nodes were considered, and their > upgrade practices are not usually slower than miners. >=20 = =CE=D2=D5=EB=B6=D4=B5=C4=CA=C7=C0=C1=B6=E8=BA=CD=B1=BB=B6=AF=B5=C4=BD=DA=B5= =E3=A3=AC=B6=F8=B7=C7=BB=EE=D4=BE=D7=F6=B3=F6=D1=A1=D4=F1=B5=C4=BD=DA=B5=E3= =A1=A3=D3=C3=BB=A7=D4=B8=D2=E2=B5=C4=BB=B0=D7=DC=CA=C7=BF=C9=D2=D4=D7=F6=B3= =F6=D7=D4=BC=BA=B5=C4=D1=A1=D4=F1=A1=A3=B2=A2=C3=BB=D3=D0=B0=EC=B7=A8=C0=B4= =C7=BF=C6=C8=B2=A2=B2=BB=C8=CF=CD=AC=B5=C4=C8=CB=D0=CE=B3=C9=B9=B2=CA=B6=A1= =A3 I mean lazy and passive ones I addressed. Not the one actively chose = whichever solution they like. Users always have their solution. There=A1=AF= s no way to force a union if they are not together. > Even in the very first version of the software it did not mine unless > the user went into the settings and explicitly turned it on or used a > command-line option. By default, every installation of Bitcoin was a > non-mining wallet node. >=20 = =D4=DA=D6=D0=B1=BE=B4=CF=B0=D7=C6=A4=CA=E9=D6=D0=B5=DA=CE=E5=D5=C2=B5=C4=B6= =A8=D2=E5=CF=C2=A3=AC=C3=BF=B8=F6=BD=DA=B5=E3=B6=BC=D0=E8=D2=AA=CD=DA=BF=F3= =A1=A3=C8=E7=B9=FB=D4=DB=C1=A9=B6=D4=B4=CB=B4=E6=D4=DA=B7=D6=C6=E7=A3=AC=CE= =D2=B2=A2=CE=DE=B7=A8=CB=B5=B7=FE=C4=E3=A1=A3 =46rom the definition of Satishi Nakamoto, Section 5, each node mines. = If that=A1=AFs the disagreement between us, there=A1=AFs no more I can = convince you.=20 > The enforcement of the system's rules by users broadly, and not just > miners, is specifically described in the white paper (section 8, > paragraph 2, it especially clear in the last sentence). This is > critical for the security of Bitcoin especially with the current > degree of centralization in pools. Without it, Bitcoin's security > would look a lot more like the Ripple system. >=20 =CA=C7=B5=C4=A3=AC=D3=C3=BB=A7=D3=C0=D4=B6=B6=BC=D3=D0=D1=A1=D4=F1=A3=AC=B2= =A2=BF=C9=D2=D4=C5=D7=C6=FA=C4=C7=D0=A9=BD=DA=B5=E3=A1=A3=D5=E2=B8=F6 = BIP = =B2=A2=C3=BB=D3=D0=B7=B4=B6=D4=D5=E2=D0=A9=D3=C3=BB=A7=D5=E2=C3=B4=D7=F6=A1= =A3=D6=BB=D3=D0=C4=C7=D0=A9=B1=BB=B6=AF=B5=C4=C7=AE=B0=FC=D3=C3=BB=A7=A3=AC= =CB=FB=C3=C7=D0=E8=D2=AA=D6=AA=B5=C0=B1=D8=D0=EB=D7=F6=B3=F6=D2=BB=B8=F6=D1= =A1=D4=F1=A1=A3=A3=A8=B6=F8=B2=BB=CA=C7=B1=BB=B6=AF=B5=C4=B8=FA=CB=E6=C4=AC= =C8=CF=B5=C4=B2=DF=C2=D4=A3=A9 Yes, users always have choice that they can abandon the nodes. This BIP = does=A1=AFt go against them. I mean only the one(especially wallets) = that=A1=AFs passive, they need to know there=A1=AFs a choice and pick = one. =D5=E2=B8=F6 BIP = =BF=C9=D2=D4=B1=BB=D3=A6=D3=C3=D3=DA=BC=B8=BA=F5=C8=CE=BA=CE=B5=C4=C9=FD=BC= =B6=C9=CF=A3=AC=B0=FC=C0=A8=B8=F4=C0=EB=BC=FB=D6=A4=A3=AC=C1=BD=D5=D7=B5=C4= =B8=F4=C0=EB=BC=FB=D6=A4=A3=AC=C1=BD=D5=D7=C0=A9=C8=DD=A3=AC=D3=BF=CF=D6=B9= =B2=CA=B6=A3=AC=B0=CB=D5=D7=C0=A9=C8=DD=B5=C8=A1=A3=B5=AB=D5=E2=D0=A9=C9=FD= =BC=B6=B2=A2=B2=BB=CA=C7=D6=D8=B5=E3=A1=A3 This BIP can be applied to almost any upgrade, including Segwit, = Segwit2x, 2m, ec, 8m=A1=AD but the upgrade is not the key point. =B5=BD=B5=D7=CE=D2=C3=C7=B5=C4=D3=C3=BB=A7=CA=C7=B7=F1=D5=E6=B5=C4=D3=B5=D3= =D0=D1=A1=D4=F1=A3=BF Did the users have any real choice? = =CE=D2=B2=A2=B2=BB=C4=DC=C0=ED=BD=E2=CB=FB=C3=C7=CF=E0=D0=C5=B4=F3=B2=BF=B7= =D6=BF=F3=B9=A4=A3=A8=BE=CD=CF=F1=B5=B1=C7=B0=D2=BB=D1=F9=A3=A9=A3=AC=B5=AB= =BE=DC=BE=F8=D5=E2=D0=A9=B6=E0=CA=FD=BF=F3=B9=A4=B6=D4=D0=AD=D2=E9=B8=C4=B1= =E4=B5=C4=CD=B6=C6=B1=BD=E1=B9=FB=A1=A3 I don=A1=AFt see the reason they trust the majority miners(as they do = today) but refuse the vote for upcoming protocol upgrade. = =B6=D4=C7=AE=B0=FC=D3=C3=BB=A7=B5=C4=D1=A1=D4=F1=A3=AC=CA=C7=CB=FB=C3=C7=CA= =C7=B7=F1=CF=E0=D0=C5=B6=E0=CA=FD=BF=F3=B9=A4=A1=A3=C8=E7=B9=FB=CB=FB=C3=C7= =B2=BB=CF=E0=D0=C5=A3=AC=BF=C9=D2=D4=CD=A8=B9=FD=B7=D6=B2=E6=C0=B4=CF=FB=B3= =FD=B5=F4=BF=F3=B9=A4=A1=A3 This choice for wallet users right now, is wether to follow the 51% = majority miners. If they don=A1=AFt, they can have their fork that get = rid of miners. =C8=E7=B9=FB=CB=FB=C3=C7=C8=D4=BE=C9=CF=E0=D0=C5=BF=F3=B9=A4=A3=AC=C4=C7=C3= =B4=BF=C9=D2=D4=C1=F4=CF=C2=C0=B4=B2=A2=B8=FA=CB=E6=BF=F3=B9=A4=BD=AB=C0=B4= =B5=C4=D0=AD=D2=E9=B8=C4=B1=E4=A1=A3 If they do trust the majority miners, they stay and follow the vote for = upcoming protocol upgrade. = =CB=F9=D2=D4=CE=CA=CC=E2=D4=DA=D3=DA=A3=BA=B1=C8=CC=D8=B1=D2=B5=C4=BF=AA=B7= =A2=D5=DF=A1=A2=D3=C3=BB=A7=A1=A2=D3=B5=D3=D0=D5=DF=A1=A2=B7=FE=CE=F1=CC=E1= =B9=A9=D5=DF=A1=A2=C9=F5=D6=C1=BF=F3=B9=A4=A3=AC=CA=C7=B7=F1=A3=A8=C8=D4=C8= =BB=A3=A9=C8=E7=B0=D7=C6=A4=CA=E9=D6=D0=C3=E8=CA=F6=B5=C4=B6=D4=B4=F3=B6=E0= =CA=FD=BF=F3=B9=A4=D3=B5=D3=D0=D0=C5=C8=CE=A1=A3 So the questions is: Do the bitcoin developers, users, holders, service = provides, even miners, (still) have faith in the majority of miners as = designed in the white paper? > Frequently it is the miners that are "passive and lazy" in upgrading. > In some cases when new versions have had major improvements specific > to mining (such as for 0.8) miners upgraded much faster than other > nodes. But often, it is the other way around and miners adopt new > versions much slower than other nodes. If you look at block > construction today you will see that many miners are running highly > outdated node software which is more than one or even two years old. > (and as a result, they lose out on a considerable amount of > transaction fees.) >=20 = =CE=D2=B8=F6=C8=CB=BD=AB=D5=E2=D6=D6=D0=D0=CE=AA=CA=D3=D7=F7=B6=D4=B5=B1=C7= =B0=B0=E6=B1=BE=B5=C4=B7=B4=B6=D4=C6=B1=A1=A3=D5=E2=B8=F6BIP=D2=B2=BF=BC=C2= =C7=C1=CB=D5=E2=D6=D6=C7=E9=BF=F6=A3=AC=C4=FA=CA=C7=B7=F1=D7=A2=D2=E2=B5=BD= =BF=F3=B9=A4=D3=A6=B8=C3=CF=C8=C9=FD=BC=B6=A3=A8=B1=DC=C3=E2=B1=BB=B9=C2=C1= =A2=A3=A9=A3=AC=D5=E2=CA=C7=B7=F1=BD=E2=BE=F6=C1=CB=C4=E3=CC=E1=B3=F6=B5=C4= =CE=CA=CC=E2=C4=D8=A3=BF I personally take that as VETO to current version. This BIP also address = this situation. Did you notice that miners should be upgraded first? Did = that solve the problem you mentioned above? = =C8=E7=B9=FB=CE=D2=C3=C7=BF=C9=D2=D4=CD=A8=B9=FD=D5=E2=B8=F6=B7=BD=B7=A8=C8= =C3=CB=F9=D3=D0=BF=F3=B9=A4=D6=C1=C9=D9=B6=BC=D2=AA=C9=FD=BC=B6=B5=BD=CF=E0= =CD=AC=B5=C4=B9=B2=CA=B6=B0=E6=B1=BE=B2=A2=BF=AA=CA=BC=B6=D4=BD=AB=C0=B4=B5= =C4=C9=FD=BC=B6=CD=B6=C6=B1=A3=AC=C4=C7=D3=A6=B8=C3=B2=BB=BB=E1=D3=D0=C8=CE= =BA=CE=CE=CA=CC=E2=A1=A3=B3=FD=B7=C7=BF=F3=B9=A4=CF=A3=CD=FB=BD=F8=D0=D0=B5= =C4=CD=B6=C6=B1=A3=AC=B2=BB=CA=C7=C4=B3=D0=A9=C8=CB=CF=A3=CD=FB=BF=B4=B5=BD= =B5=C4=CD=B6=C6=B1=A1=A3 If we can use this method to at least make miners upgraded to the same = consensus version and start to vote for the upcoming changes, that would = solve the problem for the passive behavior. Unless the vote miners wish = to hold, is not in the wishlist of someone. > In fact, many miners have the most severe form of passive behavior: > they do not run a node at all but simply sell their hash power to > pools (which themselves are often slow to upgrade). By comparison, > http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/branches.html 95% > of reachable nodes are running software now from the last year and a > half. >=20 > I do not, however, believe that it is a problem that anyone is slow to = upgrade. >=20 > Reliability cannot be maintained in infrastructure if it is rapidly > changing. A normal deployment process for major systems > infrastructure outside of Bitcoin usually takes months because time > must be given to test and find bugs. >=20 > Miners depend on their income from mining and interruptions can be > very costly. Many pools are also involved with altcoins which are > constantly breaking and they have their attention directed elsewhere > and cannot quickly spare the time required to upgrade their software. > These delays are the natural consequence of a decentralized system > where no one has the power to force other people to adopt their > priorities. >=20 > If you look at the deployment processes of major internet protocols, > HTTP2, new versions of SSH, BGP, or IP itself you will find that > upgrades often happen slower than the entire life of Bitcoin so far-- > and none of these protocols have the difficult consistency challenges > of Bitcoin or as much risk of irreparable financial loss if things go > wrong. >=20 > Because many people in the Bitcoin community appears to expect > upgrades much faster than even centralized ISP backbones upgrade their > router software I think they have unrealistic expectations with how > fast upgrading can occur while preserving stability, security, and > decentralization and unrealistic expectations of how fast upgrading > will occur so long as no one has the ability to force other people to > run their upgrades. >=20 > I look forward to competing my understanding of your proposal. >=20 > Cheers, I think the divergency is from the different definition of bitcoin. If = no common understanding, let=A1=AFs get one from the white paper, = together. Regards LIN Zheming=