MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAD5xwhjVS4Y4e3qDWzJfva+0hiKpe8-WqmX_kUHrpfXmG5sMXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <uUzpB7Sapu5q3qxF7voLmwRIJfLPGCwcelhFVR8BClM7HBi9n86zj1A6SeYBdKZXOGL-8C049G1mEURDkyNMhksyPMfjIMPJXHoidOydAT8=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <uUzpB7Sapu5q3qxF7voLmwRIJfLPGCwcelhFVR8BClM7HBi9n86zj1A6SeYBdKZXOGL-8C049G1mEURDkyNMhksyPMfjIMPJXHoidOydAT8=@protonmail.com>
From: Zac Greenwood <zachgrw@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:49:19 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJ4-pEAsyeqq0wM7dJgbBb-RLKbgWpzuLikrBFBBMtz2zm4aCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>, 
 Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@protonmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007834cb05dd298a98"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] 7 Theses on a next step for BIP-119
Precedence: list

--0000000000007834cb05dd298a98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 15:49, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

Assuming 90 percent of miners don't signal for it in one of the Speedy
> Trial windows then the activation attempt will have failed and it will be
> back in Jeremy's court whether he tries again with a different activation
> attempt.
>
> Assuming 90 percent of miners do signal for it (unlikely in my opinion but
> presumably still a possibility) then the CTV soft fork could activate
> unless full nodes resist it.
>

This is wrong. Miners do not have the mandate to decide the faith of
softforks. The MO of softforks is that once a softfork has been merged, it
already has consensus and must be activated by miners eventually. The
various activation methods exist to ensure miners cannot sabotage a
softfork that has consensus.

The way you phrase it, makes it sound like miners have any say over
softforks. This is not the case.

Zac

>

--0000000000007834cb05dd298a98
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div><div dir=3D"auto">On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 15:49, Michael Folkson via bi=
tcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" targ=
et=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div=
><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div></div><div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gma=
il_quote"></div></div></div><div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;pad=
ding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><div style=3D"font-family=
:arial;font-size:14px"></div><div style=3D"font-family:arial;font-size:14px=
">Assuming 90 percent of miners don&#39;t signal for it in one of the Speed=
y Trial windows then the activation attempt will have failed and it will be=
 back in Jeremy&#39;s court whether he tries again with a different activat=
ion attempt.<br></div><div style=3D"font-family:arial;font-size:14px"><br><=
/div><div style=3D"font-family:arial;font-size:14px">Assuming 90 percent of=
 miners do signal for it (unlikely in my opinion but presumably still a pos=
sibility) then the CTV soft fork could activate unless full nodes resist it=
.</div></blockquote><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div></div><div><div dir=3D"auto=
">This is wrong. Miners do not have the mandate to decide the faith of soft=
forks. The MO of softforks is that once a softfork has been merged, it alre=
ady has consensus and must be activated by miners eventually. The various a=
ctivation methods exist to ensure miners cannot sabotage a softfork that ha=
s consensus.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">The way you=
 phrase it, makes it sound like miners have any say over softforks. This is=
 not the case.</div></div><div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"=
><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Zac</div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;bo=
rder-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">=
<div style=3D"font-family:arial;font-size:14px" dir=3D"auto"> </div></block=
quote></div></div>
</div>

--0000000000007834cb05dd298a98--