1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
|
Return-Path: <rgrant@rgrant.org>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72508C0001
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Feb 2021 18:37:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 537A56F9B5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Feb 2021 18:37:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 siItMEqqT2up
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Feb 2021 18:37:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:25:43 by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-lj1-f178.google.com (mail-lj1-f178.google.com
[209.85.208.178])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 238FC6F9B1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Feb 2021 18:37:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-lj1-f178.google.com with SMTP id m11so10831586lji.10
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:37:00 -0800 (PST)
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;
bh=lBk+jkhhl5mCVwMDVUDBPiGvkfzzDdkz/5SL67t7yR0=;
b=I8xlli397WKRrS+ZyQ64uPeDmjGjwzA0eZngs1HyXGWcHecz1BcxKBSWVwJB0/gAcp
i2qgC46vx4eViqHdXL01lH2tlymWzuEC3Zby+k2VjGXmpQDgEZeELPza4tsTTei0BKY5
VTJ0T9Qs0zm+tUCBKkC/mteyd9lO3CEkLlpyrkBcVHg2JxKgmSZchTB/VSj2iI03IltP
CBm4x2zyGJlMZ++eT+fOhm6cji3BsT1aSgpYd3P6NB8+NRc8u8ka1yMPQ6qcDMsfAagF
VhNvKxxvqNN2KZdW7Z2sjrgrQLoYDiiSeVjz3n7t+nifKBRk2YctAReB3ncZp5g/Cc32
Rzmw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5316QvskL0BVdqdmBXn0tuOsL5eb4hLvFWvugZMrTuSgyYCgOdDM
RFKFTZUbeoZ2TJW3KXzz65V5bqUkeIQKqPtesYkHe9YzqcBLCs1g
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw/WiNtPtnQ6a5J3ETQnOhFrP+8HvPGLuBK7DphdJbIoLx4k6V26J4G3AiHoJEoLFL8bLz2jg31uFVbM769r+k=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6b03:: with SMTP id v3mr4282163wrw.371.1614361739112;
Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:48:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <bc69d684-3d6e-624e-a859-c2ef8ad5cb13@posteo.net>
In-Reply-To: <bc69d684-3d6e-624e-a859-c2ef8ad5cb13@posteo.net>
From: Ryan Grant <bitcoin-dev@rgrant.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 17:48:33 +0000
Message-ID: <CAMnpzfo0X4d9vuVJGxMf9f=yxr8gT_zUZ+d+_X0Dtv7ADTwCnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Exploring alternative activation mechanisms:
decreasing threshold
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 18:37:02 -0000
Huh.
I like the mechanism.
I like the honesty that once a feature with high demand and safety is
ready, activation pressure will keep increasing.
The gradual march of time in this Decreasing Threshold proposal is
predictable and incremental in ways that help avoid brinkmanship.
Avoiding the hard fork dynamic (that LOT=true requires) prevents some
chain splits, but activation under political opposition may then still
depend on a UASF. If I thought the time had come to line up a UASF
for a feature, I'd first want to have nodes out there running this
softer Decreasing Threshold activation (maybe before it fails).
It's also not as unresponsive to miner wisdom as LOT=true.
Conceptually, it asks miners to arbitrate both version adoption as
well as whether nodes which haven't upgraded face risks in an early
activation. Should miners find themselves in dramatic unanimity, they
even have enough influence to technically fail any activation.
|
