Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AEB5C002C for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 05:57:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5215A610AD for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 05:57:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.517 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, BITCOIN_OBFU_SUBJ=1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.117, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dashjr.org Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TMKRCoW1cgiF for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 05:57:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [IPv6:2001:470:88ff:2f::1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDA4D60B88 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 05:56:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.lan (unknown [12.151.133.18]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 300BE38A1C93; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 05:56:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan; t=1650520616; bh=LZWwpG7gzpWTIFPMFjfRCCDJ92d60gQXevqbvTc0OUY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Cc:References:In-Reply-To; b=pJJhx+PTS2M9kB8XJWrM57n9eOgyq/+RlyQszufuN5JiJGqQ3GNXeT0xntFDQAZkt hZoAm3yRWd6/SVgzFPPirTxLVHWHgjSOydv0swdzbx2L1DKa9Rq0/JsOBmZ+5/2Kap 2FXWrdcVT4gY1pkbU5n+f5kcPnQ9o/8yVa5Yslrg= From: Luke Dashjr To: alicexbt Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 05:56:54 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <64a34b4d46461da322be51b53ec2eb01@dtrt.org> <202204210205.47678.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: X-KMail-QuotePrefix: > MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <202204210556.54781.luke@dashjr.org> Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Automatically reverting ("transitory") soft forks, e.g. for CTV 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: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 05:57:02 -0000 On Thursday 21 April 2022 03:10:02 alicexbt wrote: > @DavidHarding > > Interesting proposal to revert consensus changes. Is it possible to do this > for soft forks that are already activated? Generally, no. Reverting a softfork without a built-in expiry would be a hardfork. > Example: Some users are not okay with witness discount in segwit > transactions > > https://nitter.net/giacomozucco/status/1513614380121927682 While reverting Segwit wouldn't be possible, it IS entirely possible to do an additional softfork to either weigh witness data at the full 4 WU/Byte rate (same as other data), or to reduce the total weight limit so as to extend the witness discount to non-segwit transactions (so scriptSig is similarly discounted). > @LukeDashjr > > > The bigger issue with CTV is the miner-decision route. Either CTV has > > community support, or it doesn't. If it does, miners shouldn't have the > > ability to veto it. If it doesn't, miners shouldn't have the ability to > > activate it (making it a 51% attack more than a softfork). > > Agree. UASF client compatible with this speedy trial release for BIP 119 > could be a better way to activate CTV. Users can decide if they prefer > mining pools to make the decision for them or they want to enforce it > irrespective of how many mining pools signal for it. I haven't seen any > arguments against CTV from mining pools yet. We had that for Taproot, and now certain people are trying to say Speedy Trial activated Taproot rather than the BIP8 client, and otherwise creating confusion and ambiguity. Furthermore, the variant of Speedy Trial being used (AFAIK) is the BIP9 variant which has no purpose other than to try to sabotage parallel UASF efforts. At this point, it is probably better for any Speedy Trial attempts to be rejected by the community and fail outright. Perhaps even preparing a real counter-softfork to invalidate blocks signalling for it. Luke