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
92
93
94
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97EB6C0881
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 05:59:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FA6784737
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 05:59:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 5Wb2EaL3T38I
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 05:59:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E5B2846C0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 05:59:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.lan (unknown [12.190.236.211])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 80C2038A0DEA;
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 05:58:37 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan;
t=1578808782; bh=pazfth+SV7HS7+dbvtiRZ0c01/ginEAet2doMPVGKPo=;
h=From:To:Subject:Date:Cc:References:In-Reply-To;
b=PiP0bbgp6r694oNugheC0zujtqdZR7zecg0fyHJSBkfHthTObnARkVKD0e+kNVOx3
FowbNBYQs1KpHJ+4FohrRSdKgT5PM2gMkaHmkM1YFcxS5LXn89g18UR0F9yJhhdgYI
BNRxz8XfE2ur/b6pEOABP3M0soBn4xFfUaczaBV0=
X-Hashcash: 1:25:200112:aj@erisian.com.au::wpMFTWFHA79Wi1R8:akKx=
X-Hashcash: 1:25:200112:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::sPjc1XgeWxDzMrMK:a9=XJ
X-Hashcash: 1:25:200112:lf-lists@mattcorallo.com::2zi7CUrYS=RZyUwY:i+Sg
X-Hashcash: 1:25:200112:jtimon@jtimon.cc::zDebzzb9haDPg3yc:eWogy
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 05:58:33 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
References: <20200111144207.5xzspeptstspsbsf@erisian.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <20200111144207.5xzspeptstspsbsf@erisian.com.au>
X-KMail-QuotePrefix: >
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <202001120558.34256.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Modern Soft Fork Activation
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: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 05:59:47 -0000
On Saturday 11 January 2020 14:42:07 Anthony Towns wrote:
> the UASF approach had significant potential technical problems
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(potential for long reorgs, p2p network splits) that weren=
't
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0resolved by the time it became active.
Long reorgs, only for old nodes, were a possibility, but not a problem.
The p2p network split issues WERE resolved well before activation.
(In fact, Bitcoin Knots still ships with the general p2p fixes.)
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0neither=20
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0BIP-148 or BIP-91 gained enough consensus to be supported =
in
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0bitcoin core though
There was no measurable difference in community support between BIP148 and=
=20
Segwit itself, months before BIP148's activation. (There was about 20% that=
=20
indicated they would support BIP148 "only if Bitcoin Core releases it", whi=
ch=20
IMO "counts" in this context.)
The only difference was in the opinions of developers. Basing the decision =
to=20
exclude BIP148 as even an *option* on this basis was IMO improper and=20
shouldn't be repeated. The community's readiness to switch to another=20
fork/build for UASFs is also valuable, but shouldn't be necessary.
Luke
|
