Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B27EC0001 for ; Sat, 22 May 2021 20:35:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F29240374 for ; Sat, 22 May 2021 20:35:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.92 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com 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 stvmJDljEIGn for ; Sat, 22 May 2021 20:35:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-yb1-xb32.google.com (mail-yb1-xb32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b32]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 904B240397 for ; Sat, 22 May 2021 20:35:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb1-xb32.google.com with SMTP id d14so24412321ybe.3 for ; Sat, 22 May 2021 13:35:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NG695oB4vLu6tEv4yusGU4a4OYvAijRliTIm4lqXYv4=; b=a07OUK2RfEUA7pj2ZAWOd22k6rP4bJFCWTEp79kgLlXRCHs7Y2szC02sY4oKKrM7Yd xIYC/hic6MwzE4O3c0jb6xFYQNoYRgxAQAjYYesYL/jPmbyJOOKYQEiJmn3fYprn7RPI dk3lOnnmBSZeycqYQHgL57cbZUmiR7+4ZcbI/L4doLM3TnqYJYayYGZjqm82ygNbj89I lCfP9r3wqtJv6i3p3hSjMK/587tGg08tXGplwneZ9QMHBBMY0MjpY+oWrNExBmZe1ZC1 zhqAoPgLTCNfHvo/g11Lyecu9QnWsq9QdVOWRxgaJTEoEQJbdRC/mx9EhnYBrziyah4k UwDg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NG695oB4vLu6tEv4yusGU4a4OYvAijRliTIm4lqXYv4=; b=l2aSACGItJfkNRXwRn91nSppXYs2rQlpwxhXRcjCRI/sxyhKo7xkOOupgpJ/giFTIT 0pNl/J+Eh2XdINmSre/YQVQ9LnEHg6YCZocSr9V71m2m8Yd2eu7wOWZ8Ko/rAksaVNBj Z5xFPXL2xyM65HuLMX8aaUKuWaSDL9T96hBNa2MUWGRFV1D1jW18uAXx6B4peKNMHpJu qs009bK23/41WuSSx5kWqJ9/qAqGYZ33tUdSC2DT9YhTGTkwOqdMaLsKtYubBiwFFSQK nZsMhY2Ew9emv1zvuo+6Rw+MQXVxQetJAbSL8uG7hgs4qk4g6cPV5jJmC0nvRNjYwSfd W1sA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ubaegI6iIM2CHmutalp9V17jvdsQ5+F5hbm1ZwLt9BXyR1+54 vE7vDQVlUqS4mPza0D8dlOpm1Ga0UVJq4yi1h0AHkw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxXxxUoQU1XTHqKYgUy2YObLdyCfua8i5OtuZI8BA7+7avupIp9ubDRm6v2+lZM75ePolRyC7+f4N1fmmK6+5s= X-Received: by 2002:a25:ae07:: with SMTP id a7mr23349403ybj.133.1621715716471; Sat, 22 May 2021 13:35:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Date: Sat, 22 May 2021 21:35:03 +0100 Message-ID: To: "Raystonn ." Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000350ea205c2f11de9" Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus protocol immutability is a feature 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: Sat, 22 May 2021 20:35:19 -0000 --000000000000350ea205c2f11de9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hardforks can be useful too. But, yes, I agree softforks are preferable whenever possible. On Sat, May 22, 2021, 20:55 Raystonn . wrote: > None of these required a hard fork. I should rephrase my previous email > to clarify the intended topic as hard consensus changes, requiring a hard > fork. "Soft" forks can be useful. > > Raystonn > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Jorge Tim=C3=B3n > *Sent:* Saturday, May 22, 2021 7:55 AM > *To:* Raystonn . ; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus protocol immutability is a feature > > That is clearly not true. People entretain making changes to the protocol > all the time. Bitcoin is far from perfect and not improving it would be > stupid in my opinion. > Some improvements require changes to the consensus rules. > Recent changes include relative lock time verify or segwit. These are > important changes that made things like lightning much easier and efficie= nt > than they could possibly be without them. > Taproot, which is a recent proposal, could help simplify the lightning > protocol even further, and make it more efficient and its usage more > private. And there are more use cases. > > There have been consensus rule changes since bitcoin started, and with > good reason. As a user, you can always oppose new changes. And if enough > users agree with you, you will be able to maintain your own chain with th= e > old rules. At the same time, there's nothing you can do to stop other use= rs > who want those changes from coordinating with each other to adopt them. > > Perhaps you're interested in bip99, which discusses consensus rule change= s > in more detail. > > > > On Sat, May 22, 2021, 13:09 Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Suggestions to make changes to Bitcoin's consensus protocol will only eve= r > be entertained if Bitcoin is completely dead without such a change. Any > attempt to change consensus protocol without a clear and convincing > demonstration to the entire network of participants that Bitcoin will die > without that change is a waste of your own time. Bitcoin's resistance to > consensus changes is a feature that makes it resistant to being coopted a= nd > corrupted. I recommend developers focus on making improvements that do n= ot > attempt to change the consensus protocol. Otherwise, you are simply > working on an altcoin, which is off-topic here. > > Raystonn > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --000000000000350ea205c2f11de9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hardforks can be useful too.
But, yes, I= agree softforks are preferable whenever possible.

On Sat, May 22, 202= 1, 20:55 Raystonn . <raystonn@ho= tmail.com> wrote:
None of these required a hard fork.=C2=A0 I should rephrase my previou= s email to clarify the intended topic as hard consensus changes, requiring = a hard fork.=C2=A0 "Soft" forks can be useful.

Raystonn

From:= Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2021 7:55 AM
To: Raystonn . <raystonn@hotmail.com>; Bitcoin Protocol = Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org= >
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus protocol immutability is a feat= ure
=C2=A0
That is clearly not true. People entretain making changes= to the protocol all the time. Bitcoin is far from perfect and not improvin= g it would be stupid in my opinion.
Some improvements require changes to the consensus rules.=
Recent changes include relative lock time verify or segwi= t. These are important changes that made things like lightning much easier = and efficient than they could possibly be without them.
Taproot, which is a recent proposal, could help simplify = the lightning protocol even further, and make it more efficient and its usa= ge more private. And there are more use cases.

There have been consensus rule changes since bitcoin star= ted, and with good reason. As a user, you can always oppose new changes. An= d if enough users agree with you, you will be able to maintain your own cha= in with the old rules. At the same time, there's nothing you can do to stop other users who want those ch= anges from coordinating with each other to adopt them.

Perhaps you're interested in bip99, which discusses c= onsensus rule changes in more detail.



On Sat, May 22, 2021, 13:09 Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev <= ;bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Suggestions to make changes to Bitcoin's consensus protocol will only e= ver be entertained if Bitcoin is completely dead without such a change.=C2= =A0=C2=A0Any attempt to change consensus protocol without a clear and convincing demonstration to the entire network of part= icipants that Bitcoin will die without that change is a waste of your own t= ime.=C2=A0=C2=A0Bitcoin's resistance to consensus changes is a feature that makes it resistant to be= ing coopted and corrupted.=C2=A0 I recommend developers focus on making imp= rovements that do not attempt to change the consensus protocol.=C2=A0 Other= wise, you are simply working on an altcoin, which is off-topic here.

Raystonn

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.li= nuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000350ea205c2f11de9--