MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMZUoKkTDjDSgnqhYio8Lnh-yTdsNAdXbDC9RQwnN00RdbbL6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABm2gDrdoD3QZ=gZ_nd7Q+AZpetX32dLON7pfdC4aAwpLRd4xA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMZUoK=kpZZw++WmdRM0KTkj6dQhmtsanm9eH1TksNwypKS8Zw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABm2gDpFFg47Ld3HHhTq2SVTaCusm1ybDpEmvKV=S3cFTAQwoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMZUoKkPF6gPGpDWy1U+0GCONF-_qsTcOz0S1X+vx8_Kfqr8mw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMZUoKkPF6gPGpDWy1U+0GCONF-_qsTcOz0S1X+vx8_Kfqr8mw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 13:08:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CABm2gDpFCcNcJEwia-nBhpWSjQv7DPEpqTu-bRC8RDHaoDU-=g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream.com>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Speedy Trial
Precedence: list

On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 2:35 PM Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 9:03 AM Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote=
:
> A mechanism of soft-forking against activation exists.  What more do you =
want? Are we supposed to write the code on behalf of this hypothetical grou=
p of users who may or may not exist for them just so that they can have a n=
ode that remains stalled on Speedy Trial lockin?  That simply isn't reasona=
ble, but if you think it is, I invite you to create such a fork.

I want BIP+LOT=3Dtrue to be used. I want speedy trial not to be used.
Luke wrote the code to resist BIP8+LOT=3Dtrue, and if he didn't, I could
write it myself, yes.
If you think that's not reasonable code to ever run, I don't think
you're really getting the "softfork THAT YOU OPPOSE" part of the
hypothetical right. Let me try to help with an example, although I
hope we don't get derailed in the implementation details of the
hypothetical evil proposal.

Suppose someone proposes a weight size limit increase by a extension
block softfork.
Or instead of that, just imagine the final version of the covenants
proposal has a backdoor in it or something.


Would you rather that proposal be deployed with speedy trial
activation or with BIP8+LOT=3Dtrue activation?

>>
>> Please, try to imagine an example for an activation that you wouldn't li=
ke yourself. Imagine it gets proposed and you, as a user, want to resist it=
.
>
>
> If I believe I'm in the economic majority then I'll just refuse to upgrad=
e my node, which was option 2. I don't know why you dismissed it.

Not upgrading your node doesn't prevent the softfork from being
activated in your chain.
A softfork may affect you indirectly even if you don't use the new
features yourself directly.
You may chose to stay in the old chain even if you don't consider
you're "in the economic majority" at that moment.

> Not much can prevent a miner cartel from enforcing rules that users don't=
 want other than hard forking a replacement POW.  There is no effective dif=
ference between some developers releasing a malicious soft-fork of Bitcoin =
and the miners releasing a malicious version themselves.  And when the mine=
r cartel forms, they aren't necessarily going to be polite enough to give a=
 transparent signal of their new rules.  However, without the economic majo=
rity enforcing their set of rules, the cartel continuously risks falling ap=
art from the temptation of transaction fees of the censored transactions.

It is true that a mining cartel doesn't need to use speedy trial or
BIP8+LOT=3Dtrue to apply rule changes they want just because we do.
But they would do if they wanted to maintain the appearance of benevolence.

> On the other hand, If I find out I'm in the economic minority then I have=
 little choice but to either accept the existence of the new rules or sell =
my Bitcoin.  Look, you cannot have the perfect system of money all by your =
lonesome self.  Money doesn't have economic value if no one else wants to t=
rade you for it.  Just ask that poor user who YOLO'd his own taproot activa=
tion in advance all by themselves.  I'm sure they think they've got just th=
e perfect money system, with taproot early and everything.  But now their n=
ode is stuck at block 692261 and hasn't made progress since.  No doubt they=
 are hunkered down for the long term, absolutely committed to their fork an=
d just waiting for the rest of the world to come around to how much better =
their version of Bitcoin is than the rest of us.

Well, you could also have the option to stay in the old chain with the
economic minority, it doesn't have to be you alone.
We agree that one person alone can't use a currency.

> Even though you've dismissed it, one of the considerations of taproot was=
 that it is opt-in for users to use the functionality.  Future soft-forks o=
ught to have the same considerations to the extent possible.

Well, the same could be said about segwit. And yet all the
consequences of the change are not opt in.
For example, segwit contained a block size limit increase.
Sure, you can just not validate the witnesses, but then you're no
longer a full node.