Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DCF0C002F for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 17:22:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F01E40262 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 17:22:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tutanota.de Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v3sC6Z_6SQew for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 17:22:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from w1.tutanota.de (w1.tutanota.de [81.3.6.162]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C54F4020B for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 17:22:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from w3.tutanota.de (unknown [192.168.1.164]) by w1.tutanota.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3141BFBF517; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 17:22:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1642526525; s=s1; d=tutanota.de; h=From:From:To:To:Subject:Subject:Content-Description:Content-ID:Content-Type:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Message-ID:Reply-To:References:Sender; bh=gWFrQjfr+fOLoceMu1bWhOsf6+TmB8hFKiUapxkru98=; b=xV0nngW27DB4TeKB09rMcyD8G45fHhxVsPXno/Rmc66ou2V+nzn4f2vDUjI/ymdX CLy7oPqsJ7bWnh2g1Jkzu+Ymo1OvoiZwoONXG/R3/8g1TztQ89fNU1FFePflP2Lo2KD y3pAInHY96QDdKAqknBiK+vgbUfkTNCnGfCTm/5CJRChbkMPJfyKojzSVHH6hD2KTHh BX8pCBCmr2QQvL78/YafofXK+wrWGylENiVMyLnMMzowOD0FXSwa04DhR9tEn89LLaS 797Hkq1p4Lcx5VgeuNFowtknZu37ojzk+Qf59huFLkbBx/upiwrthZk7+Nge4VhHejZ o05aiB0XsA== Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 18:22:05 +0100 (CET) From: Prayank To: Billy Tetrud Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_9089_356154592.1642526525185" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 19:21:18 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] On the regularity of soft forks 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: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 17:22:09 -0000 ------=_Part_9089_356154592.1642526525185 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > We should strive to one day get to a point where the bitcoin consensus isn't updating at all. That day is nowhere near IMO and maybe we won't see it in my lifetime. > Perhaps we should come to a consensus as a consensus as a community what the minimum time between soft forks should be, and just as importantly, what the minimum time between finalized consensus-change implementation and when we decide community consensus has been achieved. This is not possible in a decentralized network like Bitcoin and makes no sense. Soft forks can/should be done as and when required. This does not mean we do them often but if a change makes sense, looks ready, got enough consensus, reviewed properly etc. then timing doesn't really matter in every case. > Activating multiple consensus changes in a bundle is far safer than having multiple separate in-flight soft forks at once. This is not true. More changes bundled require more review and still more probability to have bugs. Security is always about keeping things simple. > One solution is that we could be a lot more direct about how decisions are made. There's been a lot of rhetoric around UASF and how the economic majority is really who's running the show. BIP 8 with LOT=TRUE was a better activation mechanism option in Taproot but some influential developers wrote its misleading, unsafe etc. on social media so you can call me negative at this moment however I have realized the truth is really sad and we can't blindly follow some people. There are lot of people who will tell you bad things about UASF and how speedy trial is the best thing Bitcoin has ever experienced. Michael Folkson also had some opinion in activation mechanism IIRC, -- Prayank A3B1 E430 2298 178F ------=_Part_9089_356154592.1642526525185 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> We should strive to one day get to a point where the bitcoin cons= ensus isn't updating at all.

That day is nowhere near IMO and maybe we won't see it in my life= time.

> Perhaps w= e should come to a consensus as a consensus as a community what the minimum= time between soft forks should be, and just as importantly, what the minim= um time between finalized consensus-change implementation and when we decid= e community consensus has been achieved.

This is not possible in a decentralized network like B= itcoin and makes no sense. Soft forks can/should be done as and when requir= ed. This does not mean we do them often but if a change makes sense, looks = ready, got enough consensus, reviewed properly etc. then timing doesn't rea= lly matter in every case.

> Activating multiple consensus changes in a bundle is far safer t= han having multiple separate in-flight soft forks at once.

This is not true. More changes bundl= ed require more review and still more probability to have bugs. Security is= always about keeping things simple.

<= div dir=3D"auto">> One solution is that we could be a lot more direct ab= out how decisions are made. There's been a lot of rhetoric around UASF and = how the economic majority is really who's running the show.

BIP 8 with LOT=3DTRUE was a better = activation mechanism option in Taproot but some influential developers wrot= e its misleading, unsafe etc. on social media so you can call me negative a= t this moment however I have realized the truth is really sad and we can't = blindly follow some people. There are lot of people who will tell you bad t= hings about UASF and how speedy trial is the best thing Bitcoin has ever ex= perienced.

Michael F= olkson also had some opinion in activation mechanism IIRC,


--
Prayank

A3B1 E430 2298 178F
------=_Part_9089_356154592.1642526525185--