Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DE25C002F for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:10:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6523D60A99 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:10:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.217 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.217 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.117, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 oj8pnsOPR4x5 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:10:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 405D260A88 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:10:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.lan (unknown [12.151.133.18]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2918838A1D95; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:09:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan; t=1642543801; bh=HxXvs57O6Bh1oLMo75KomuPMXHo9S9NHZyWV6Qcqzsw=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Cc:References:In-Reply-To; b=X76HCS6+OiHeBOp8gf7wWz9Sq4iW4DVR7Fyq/d3Y6tYpH6Cfj9RV3qMScsX+fDDo/ 5I3qxEB3qzSZ8cD4BLbnzF7wW0Scx5opYqXqlG/YIm3/m+pjxlJm3MnRDSTfo27ieH mlPNmDhE+Xu6EQXcHnsKgDxBoGBoJbNPbfrIDcNo= X-Hashcash: 1:25:220118:eric@voskuil.org::J7NlJQ9ErWFandHW:8C5z X-Hashcash: 1:25:220118:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::1WIppBJhKy9BnIsg:asKuE From: Luke Dashjr To: eric@voskuil.org Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:09:45 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <202201182119.02687.luke@dashjr.org> <02cc01d80cb7$1339c050$39ad40f0$@voskuil.org> In-Reply-To: <02cc01d80cb7$1339c050$39ad40f0$@voskuil.org> X-KMail-QuotePrefix: > MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <202201182209.46044.luke@dashjr.org> Cc: 'Bitcoin Protocol Discussion' Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review 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 22:10:03 -0000 On Tuesday 18 January 2022 22:02:24 eric@voskuil.org wrote: > The only material distinction between BIP9 and BIP8 is that the latter may > activate without signaled support of hash power enforcement. > > As unenforced soft forks are not "backward compatible" they produce a chain > split. Enforcement of the Bitcoin consensus protocol is by users, not miners. Softforks never produce a chain split. Miners can, and might try to do it to cause disruption in retaliation, but the softfork itself does not. > It was for this reason alone that BIP8 never gained sufficient > support. BIP 8 in fact achieved consensus for Taproot activation. > This is one of the most misleading statements I've seen here. It's not > technically a lie, because it states what "should" happen. But it is > clearly intended to lead people to believe that BIP8 was actually used > ("again") - it was not. ST was some technical tweaks to BIP9. BIP 8 was used to activate Taproot. > The outright deception around this one topic has led to significant > unnecessary conflict in the community. Make your argument, but make it > honestly. You are the one attempting to deceive here. Luke