path: root/2d/91b5ae93184278323432ad2e80cfa0bc225d6a

Return-Path: <heater@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E1126C
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:39:52 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pf0-f193.google.com (mail-pf0-f193.google.com
	[209.85.192.193])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B969198
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:39:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pf0-f193.google.com with SMTP id d5so755891pfe.1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
	h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
	:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
	bh=w0oSYHPilvpa9P2YqnIhtkqvyAzCHEkRYkkWt3k7OhA=;
	b=GS3AM3/Q6xSdIx3QWiQJFaMChXgT0bVQTU5hAbw74tYq8BzseLGRDjsemXM7w5UyBX
	0RW45g/mR673Vafw7DeIrAUVHntOT9O5xgUs4tNUM+db7fKVtBJotkX9IYiM/5r03DDf
	cRyLukMY+RHeTSVAcsKQFdeKHMXrr9cSp5cuAuzTorQYwkN2T25Y3BGY9HuLPVphCVKX
	kqEBV2zxc5WpTTCrBd508kz8PHbyXlG9K8y2IOBAWRFc5X+Z8AfyLa3hzSF9c8L0xPYy
	vgL6zfJHX2N0GoIrMh9bi+acgq4yhhRz1QDbmcCirqXvk1i8sicEswjqUVYK3eZlB+PY
	QA/g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
	:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
	bh=w0oSYHPilvpa9P2YqnIhtkqvyAzCHEkRYkkWt3k7OhA=;
	b=PGc3cjufKgycBQhmEN5lUe/ID3xKfiMPBvQG5vua27WqK1rnOU9286T+3bMTB13a/3
	4N7q0Wdez3eO7S2loW5QjUrmOesBHbaq/9QSyO1SppIdt9dN0m5TjHkkl7eHDcERGFsR
	CUFVOdd5rJxmLHuUf7LRMIAlI93ZkjTf04ZY1J4FDFh2C+czCnRCEpQIepBUaERfHAl3
	X0wSStuE9c/Mm4gSaUuj7WWR1ujzW7S8f1f76tQFQH7AQU/GiUeBPUjdFcjgW+RV8gqZ
	BPN8XvhDHtV6346p8MsDXyJGPx+Ud3yaBQ/HfNiSFCwiLB5/X8+b5PuE7yqsD5yoUU6c
	AKZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOy1dwdB/HlL1ooIvanqrPjlegcQq67/wnNhR4e1S0aLw95ZBBEb
	LFCsgG1V2oll0A==
X-Received: by 10.84.231.134 with SMTP id g6mr1072818plk.86.1497458387510;
	Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.249.10] ([180.166.55.198])
	by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
	h14sm1053093pfh.71.2017.06.14.09.39.45
	(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
	Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:39:46 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=gb2312
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.0 \(3431\))
From: Zheming Lin <heater@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgT=0k0NJWsO_TtBRTi2VqZtzuT1d1Sk+KZ2+2PUcA71tg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:39:42 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A5275580-0EA3-4021-8E4E-55E214BCEECB@gmail.com>
References: <A6AE8145-8C8A-44C2-88D3-8574D895AF6B@gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgT=0k0NJWsO_TtBRTi2VqZtzuT1d1Sk+KZ2+2PUcA71tg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3431)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:57:43 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Demonstration of Phase in Full Network
 Upgrade Activated by Miners
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:39:52 -0000



> =D4=DA 2017=C4=EA6=D4=C214=C8=D5=A3=AC02:11=A3=ACGregory Maxwell =
<greg@xiph.org> =D0=B4=B5=C0=A3=BA
>=20
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:23 AM, Zheming Lin via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> The BIP is described using Chinese and English. If any part is =
missing or need more specific, please reply. Forgive for my poor =
English.
>=20
> Your English is much better than my Chinese.  Thank you for taking the
> time to write this.
>=20
> I am still reading and trying to completely understand your proposal
> but I wanted to make one observation:
>=20
>> =
=BC=F8=D3=DA=D7=EE=B3=F5=B5=C4=B1=C8=CC=D8=B1=D2=D0=AD=D2=E9=B2=A2=CE=B4=BF=
=BC=C2=C7=B2=BB=B2=CE=D3=EB=CD=DA=BF=F3=B5=C4=C7=AE=B0=FC=BD=DA=B5=E3=A3=AC=
=B5=BC=D6=C2=D5=E2=D0=A9=C7=AE=B0=FC=BD=DA=B5=E3=B5=C4=D0=AD=D2=E9=C9=FD=BC=
=B6=CA=C7=B1=BB=B6=AF=B5=C4=A3=AC=C0=C1=B6=E8=B5=C4=A1=A3=B5=B1=D4=DA=C9=FD=
=BC=B6=B7=BD=CF=F2=C9=CF=B3=F6=CF=D6=B7=D6=C6=E7=CA=B1=A3=AC=BF=F3=B9=A4=D2=
=B2=B2=BB=D4=B8=D2=E2=D4=DA=B4=ED=CE=F3=B5=C4=C1=B4=C9=CF=CD=DA=BF=F3=A3=AC=
=B5=AB=BF=F3=B9=A4=D3=D6=C3=BB=D3=D0=C8=CE=BA=CE=B7=BD=B7=A8=BF=C9=D2=D4=C8=
=B7=B1=A3=D5=FD=D4=DA=D1=D3=B3=A4=B5=C4=C1=B4=CA=C7=B1=BB=C7=AE=B0=FC=BD=DA=
=B5=E3=B9=E3=B7=BA=BD=D3=CA=DC=B5=C4=C1=B4=A1=A3=D5=E2=BD=AB=D3=B0=CF=EC=C7=
=AE=B0=FC=BD=DA=B5=E3=B5=C4=B0=B2=C8=AB=A1=A3<br/>
>> In view of the fact that the original Bitcoin consensus did not =
consider the non-mining wallet nodes(as mentioned above), the result is =
that upgrading the consensus of these wallet nodes is passive and lazy.
>=20
> This is not true. Non-mining wallet nodes were considered, and their
> upgrade practices are not usually slower than miners.
>=20

=
=CE=D2=D5=EB=B6=D4=B5=C4=CA=C7=C0=C1=B6=E8=BA=CD=B1=BB=B6=AF=B5=C4=BD=DA=B5=
=E3=A3=AC=B6=F8=B7=C7=BB=EE=D4=BE=D7=F6=B3=F6=D1=A1=D4=F1=B5=C4=BD=DA=B5=E3=
=A1=A3=D3=C3=BB=A7=D4=B8=D2=E2=B5=C4=BB=B0=D7=DC=CA=C7=BF=C9=D2=D4=D7=F6=B3=
=F6=D7=D4=BC=BA=B5=C4=D1=A1=D4=F1=A1=A3=B2=A2=C3=BB=D3=D0=B0=EC=B7=A8=C0=B4=
=C7=BF=C6=C8=B2=A2=B2=BB=C8=CF=CD=AC=B5=C4=C8=CB=D0=CE=B3=C9=B9=B2=CA=B6=A1=
=A3
I mean lazy and passive ones I addressed. Not the one actively chose =
whichever solution they like. Users always have their solution. There=A1=AF=
s no way to force a union if they are not together.

> Even in the very first version of the software it did not mine unless
> the user went into the settings and explicitly turned it on or used a
> command-line option.  By default, every installation of Bitcoin was a
> non-mining wallet node.
>=20

=
=D4=DA=D6=D0=B1=BE=B4=CF=B0=D7=C6=A4=CA=E9=D6=D0=B5=DA=CE=E5=D5=C2=B5=C4=B6=
=A8=D2=E5=CF=C2=A3=AC=C3=BF=B8=F6=BD=DA=B5=E3=B6=BC=D0=E8=D2=AA=CD=DA=BF=F3=
=A1=A3=C8=E7=B9=FB=D4=DB=C1=A9=B6=D4=B4=CB=B4=E6=D4=DA=B7=D6=C6=E7=A3=AC=CE=
=D2=B2=A2=CE=DE=B7=A8=CB=B5=B7=FE=C4=E3=A1=A3
=46rom the definition of Satishi Nakamoto, Section 5, each node mines. =
If that=A1=AFs the disagreement between us, there=A1=AFs no more I can =
convince you.=20

> The enforcement of the system's rules by users broadly, and not just
> miners, is specifically described in the white paper (section 8,
> paragraph 2, it especially clear in the last sentence).  This is
> critical for the security of Bitcoin especially with the current
> degree of centralization in pools.  Without it, Bitcoin's security
> would look a lot more like the Ripple system.
>=20

=CA=C7=B5=C4=A3=AC=D3=C3=BB=A7=D3=C0=D4=B6=B6=BC=D3=D0=D1=A1=D4=F1=A3=AC=B2=
=A2=BF=C9=D2=D4=C5=D7=C6=FA=C4=C7=D0=A9=BD=DA=B5=E3=A1=A3=D5=E2=B8=F6 =
BIP =
=B2=A2=C3=BB=D3=D0=B7=B4=B6=D4=D5=E2=D0=A9=D3=C3=BB=A7=D5=E2=C3=B4=D7=F6=A1=
=A3=D6=BB=D3=D0=C4=C7=D0=A9=B1=BB=B6=AF=B5=C4=C7=AE=B0=FC=D3=C3=BB=A7=A3=AC=
=CB=FB=C3=C7=D0=E8=D2=AA=D6=AA=B5=C0=B1=D8=D0=EB=D7=F6=B3=F6=D2=BB=B8=F6=D1=
=A1=D4=F1=A1=A3=A3=A8=B6=F8=B2=BB=CA=C7=B1=BB=B6=AF=B5=C4=B8=FA=CB=E6=C4=AC=
=C8=CF=B5=C4=B2=DF=C2=D4=A3=A9
Yes, users always have choice that they can abandon the nodes. This BIP =
does=A1=AFt go against them. I mean only the one(especially wallets) =
that=A1=AFs passive, they need to know there=A1=AFs a choice and pick =
one.

=D5=E2=B8=F6 BIP =
=BF=C9=D2=D4=B1=BB=D3=A6=D3=C3=D3=DA=BC=B8=BA=F5=C8=CE=BA=CE=B5=C4=C9=FD=BC=
=B6=C9=CF=A3=AC=B0=FC=C0=A8=B8=F4=C0=EB=BC=FB=D6=A4=A3=AC=C1=BD=D5=D7=B5=C4=
=B8=F4=C0=EB=BC=FB=D6=A4=A3=AC=C1=BD=D5=D7=C0=A9=C8=DD=A3=AC=D3=BF=CF=D6=B9=
=B2=CA=B6=A3=AC=B0=CB=D5=D7=C0=A9=C8=DD=B5=C8=A1=A3=B5=AB=D5=E2=D0=A9=C9=FD=
=BC=B6=B2=A2=B2=BB=CA=C7=D6=D8=B5=E3=A1=A3
This BIP can be applied to almost any upgrade, including Segwit, =
Segwit2x, 2m, ec, 8m=A1=AD but the upgrade is not the key point.

=B5=BD=B5=D7=CE=D2=C3=C7=B5=C4=D3=C3=BB=A7=CA=C7=B7=F1=D5=E6=B5=C4=D3=B5=D3=
=D0=D1=A1=D4=F1=A3=BF
Did the users have any real choice?

=
=CE=D2=B2=A2=B2=BB=C4=DC=C0=ED=BD=E2=CB=FB=C3=C7=CF=E0=D0=C5=B4=F3=B2=BF=B7=
=D6=BF=F3=B9=A4=A3=A8=BE=CD=CF=F1=B5=B1=C7=B0=D2=BB=D1=F9=A3=A9=A3=AC=B5=AB=
=BE=DC=BE=F8=D5=E2=D0=A9=B6=E0=CA=FD=BF=F3=B9=A4=B6=D4=D0=AD=D2=E9=B8=C4=B1=
=E4=B5=C4=CD=B6=C6=B1=BD=E1=B9=FB=A1=A3
I don=A1=AFt see the reason they trust the majority miners(as they do =
today) but refuse the vote for upcoming protocol upgrade.

=
=B6=D4=C7=AE=B0=FC=D3=C3=BB=A7=B5=C4=D1=A1=D4=F1=A3=AC=CA=C7=CB=FB=C3=C7=CA=
=C7=B7=F1=CF=E0=D0=C5=B6=E0=CA=FD=BF=F3=B9=A4=A1=A3=C8=E7=B9=FB=CB=FB=C3=C7=
=B2=BB=CF=E0=D0=C5=A3=AC=BF=C9=D2=D4=CD=A8=B9=FD=B7=D6=B2=E6=C0=B4=CF=FB=B3=
=FD=B5=F4=BF=F3=B9=A4=A1=A3
This choice for wallet users right now, is wether to follow the 51% =
majority miners. If they don=A1=AFt, they can have their fork that get =
rid of miners.

=C8=E7=B9=FB=CB=FB=C3=C7=C8=D4=BE=C9=CF=E0=D0=C5=BF=F3=B9=A4=A3=AC=C4=C7=C3=
=B4=BF=C9=D2=D4=C1=F4=CF=C2=C0=B4=B2=A2=B8=FA=CB=E6=BF=F3=B9=A4=BD=AB=C0=B4=
=B5=C4=D0=AD=D2=E9=B8=C4=B1=E4=A1=A3
If they do trust the majority miners, they stay and follow the vote for =
upcoming protocol upgrade.

=
=CB=F9=D2=D4=CE=CA=CC=E2=D4=DA=D3=DA=A3=BA=B1=C8=CC=D8=B1=D2=B5=C4=BF=AA=B7=
=A2=D5=DF=A1=A2=D3=C3=BB=A7=A1=A2=D3=B5=D3=D0=D5=DF=A1=A2=B7=FE=CE=F1=CC=E1=
=B9=A9=D5=DF=A1=A2=C9=F5=D6=C1=BF=F3=B9=A4=A3=AC=CA=C7=B7=F1=A3=A8=C8=D4=C8=
=BB=A3=A9=C8=E7=B0=D7=C6=A4=CA=E9=D6=D0=C3=E8=CA=F6=B5=C4=B6=D4=B4=F3=B6=E0=
=CA=FD=BF=F3=B9=A4=D3=B5=D3=D0=D0=C5=C8=CE=A1=A3
So the questions is: Do the bitcoin developers, users, holders, service =
provides, even miners, (still) have faith in the majority of miners as =
designed in the white paper?


> Frequently it is the miners that are "passive and lazy" in upgrading.
> In some cases when new versions have had major improvements specific
> to mining (such as for 0.8) miners upgraded much faster than other
> nodes. But often, it is the other way around and miners adopt new
> versions much slower than other nodes. If you look at block
> construction today you will see that many miners are running highly
> outdated node software which is more than one or even two years old.
> (and as a result, they lose out on a considerable amount of
> transaction fees.)
>=20

=
=CE=D2=B8=F6=C8=CB=BD=AB=D5=E2=D6=D6=D0=D0=CE=AA=CA=D3=D7=F7=B6=D4=B5=B1=C7=
=B0=B0=E6=B1=BE=B5=C4=B7=B4=B6=D4=C6=B1=A1=A3=D5=E2=B8=F6BIP=D2=B2=BF=BC=C2=
=C7=C1=CB=D5=E2=D6=D6=C7=E9=BF=F6=A3=AC=C4=FA=CA=C7=B7=F1=D7=A2=D2=E2=B5=BD=
=BF=F3=B9=A4=D3=A6=B8=C3=CF=C8=C9=FD=BC=B6=A3=A8=B1=DC=C3=E2=B1=BB=B9=C2=C1=
=A2=A3=A9=A3=AC=D5=E2=CA=C7=B7=F1=BD=E2=BE=F6=C1=CB=C4=E3=CC=E1=B3=F6=B5=C4=
=CE=CA=CC=E2=C4=D8=A3=BF
I personally take that as VETO to current version. This BIP also address =
this situation. Did you notice that miners should be upgraded first? Did =
that solve the problem you mentioned above?

=
=C8=E7=B9=FB=CE=D2=C3=C7=BF=C9=D2=D4=CD=A8=B9=FD=D5=E2=B8=F6=B7=BD=B7=A8=C8=
=C3=CB=F9=D3=D0=BF=F3=B9=A4=D6=C1=C9=D9=B6=BC=D2=AA=C9=FD=BC=B6=B5=BD=CF=E0=
=CD=AC=B5=C4=B9=B2=CA=B6=B0=E6=B1=BE=B2=A2=BF=AA=CA=BC=B6=D4=BD=AB=C0=B4=B5=
=C4=C9=FD=BC=B6=CD=B6=C6=B1=A3=AC=C4=C7=D3=A6=B8=C3=B2=BB=BB=E1=D3=D0=C8=CE=
=BA=CE=CE=CA=CC=E2=A1=A3=B3=FD=B7=C7=BF=F3=B9=A4=CF=A3=CD=FB=BD=F8=D0=D0=B5=
=C4=CD=B6=C6=B1=A3=AC=B2=BB=CA=C7=C4=B3=D0=A9=C8=CB=CF=A3=CD=FB=BF=B4=B5=BD=
=B5=C4=CD=B6=C6=B1=A1=A3
If we can use this method to at least make miners upgraded to the same =
consensus version and start to vote for the upcoming changes, that would =
solve the problem for the passive behavior. Unless the vote miners wish =
to hold, is not in the wishlist of someone.

> In fact, many miners have the most severe form of passive behavior:
> they do not run a node at all but simply sell their hash power to
> pools (which themselves are often slow to upgrade).  By comparison,
> http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/branches.html 95%
> of reachable nodes are running software now from the last year and a
> half.
>=20
> I do not, however, believe that it is a problem that anyone is slow to =
upgrade.
>=20
> Reliability cannot be maintained in infrastructure if it is rapidly
> changing.  A normal deployment process for major systems
> infrastructure outside of Bitcoin usually takes months because time
> must be given to test and find bugs.
>=20
> Miners depend on their income from mining and interruptions can be
> very costly.  Many pools are also involved with altcoins which are
> constantly breaking and they have their attention directed elsewhere
> and cannot quickly spare the time required to upgrade their software.
> These delays are the natural consequence of a decentralized system
> where no one has the power to force other people to adopt their
> priorities.
>=20
> If you look at the deployment processes of major internet protocols,
> HTTP2, new versions of SSH, BGP,  or IP itself you will find that
> upgrades often happen slower than the entire life of Bitcoin so far--
> and none of these protocols have the difficult consistency challenges
> of Bitcoin or as much risk of irreparable financial loss if things go
> wrong.
>=20
> Because many people in the Bitcoin community appears to expect
> upgrades much faster than even centralized ISP backbones upgrade their
> router software I think they have unrealistic expectations with how
> fast upgrading can occur while preserving stability, security, and
> decentralization and unrealistic expectations of how fast upgrading
> will occur so long as no one has the ability to force other people to
> run their upgrades.
>=20
> I look forward to competing my understanding of your proposal.
>=20
> Cheers,

I think the divergency is from the different definition of bitcoin. If =
no common understanding, let=A1=AFs get one from the white paper, =
together.

Regards

LIN Zheming=