From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 05:56:54 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
References: <64a34b4d46461da322be51b53ec2eb01@dtrt.org>
 <202204210205.47678.luke@dashjr.org>
 <R95icCQeG6oNu4uNppxVTceaMmZzOQhUD40HhOXkuQCOzUY_P5uM1F1AGBejdydrSjl4RYE538VWiDHeGx3YcaS0S-z_q9v5UaCK_Y4b5TE=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <R95icCQeG6oNu4uNppxVTceaMmZzOQhUD40HhOXkuQCOzUY_P5uM1F1AGBejdydrSjl4RYE538VWiDHeGx3YcaS0S-z_q9v5UaCK_Y4b5TE=@protonmail.com>
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
Precedence: list

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