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
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE059C000D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 12 Oct 2021 19:04:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E794B403CC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 12 Oct 2021 19:04:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=jtimon-cc.20210112.gappssmtp.com
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id vMww2OkM7YCO
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 12 Oct 2021 19:04:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-yb1-xb29.google.com (mail-yb1-xb29.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b29])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84EFB4036F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 12 Oct 2021 19:04:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb29.google.com with SMTP id a7so769372yba.6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 12 Oct 2021 12:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=jtimon-cc.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=mkrkPPD0MUgeUe92Lyv0QIe2yLPrRG+Z2fF+dTkyo4Q=;
b=IvT/Pn3EaDzqAE76ZuZQb/UEuATLrv1ljsox5/mO1cE8s4IZDWtfOBct+zSQybmdAK
1PsOzE9VLd4riXXVdYl5BXZDTn6pfeFy3+zuUV3ruQxACtxaJ9jai6HvBxvbhQ+qqChi
YRM0qdPYti4EF6I5wc2QbyKcFI4KyqXSdAYsKXXL60v+7IoJVNrAFI0XN9LpiussWVZx
8iy5PDHV6M35AYv2LelyLc95NOxkmNg57Rq3/pFHYbMVL8bMSCmbtjPAYKBczfcXn4Xu
LnoHbiil5W0Qgcn8/862PpSsdEtZk+SqWxrFP5eRzpe2dSu4tDrQ2WkZGIp7uaR8DdEZ
53zg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=mkrkPPD0MUgeUe92Lyv0QIe2yLPrRG+Z2fF+dTkyo4Q=;
b=NJ9SP4ERl9nyESHwzQUmOAL3Jhh/u/W7QXKBpCPZiqrS72agotn4te2e5WFJmtyZXL
85hdsA+S2i93aD1jkFoQvEkZWw//CH5NiidUIBoy53reW/JGDwYgUuXm+O1pucMLkJmM
gqTZhmukYV2hfS/JpUgFmpI8cTqkfM3rqLcK68JlQDArkZIvgeWEHHJhZWSyxqLr1oa7
ZWkBmp6hwsdERPumWQZhJQdED5WjvK9Un2OW96sSkJMinc4QBX9hfi8p+di17L5J2ruD
BCPx4+/EIP7kalyxLt0f4w6YY30IXY/JvdxGVA3btIgmSwy5VBHQD0zK3vWYpNmu177G
gS4w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532n+cLnpFMY2C5AAqNBkxAfsI7UR7r1UX7ktUmfEWvd7MVwhU6R
DdR7fVhsgHtr4Ibr63MJGBEcL3r0yNyAx2jHi+pGgw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxUFA4f0LO7YxmzaWwA6XpXkUcIhJR+o4WYFWU2ivD5MTwJIyeV1Zoxm7PLNvm8HKezOaxHCga0JreMuj+O3L0=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:cf07:: with SMTP id f7mr30224981ybg.100.1634065454386;
Tue, 12 Oct 2021 12:04:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <Mlk5-NX--3-2@tutanota.de>
In-Reply-To: <Mlk5-NX--3-2@tutanota.de>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 21:04:02 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDpq94uG6_6Fk2Y48R=iBDjijCTOLjcDTr_yQAnkG1-UFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Prayank <prayank@tutanota.de>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] On the regularity of soft forks
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: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 19:04:17 -0000
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 5:34 PM Prayank via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Agree with almost everything.
>
> > Miner signaling is a tool for signaling readiness. It is not voting for=
the soft fork or expressing support for the soft fork. There should not be=
any attempt to facilitate miner signaling until there is sufficient commun=
ity consensus (the mining community is a subset of the community) on the so=
ft fork.
>
> This is really important which gets ignored. I wish there was a way to so=
lve this problem in a way that it is not misinterpreted by users.
>
> During signalling for taproot, there were lots of users in different comm=
unities that believed miners are voting for taproot and we need some percen=
tage of miners to agree before making any changes in Bitcoin. It was not ju=
st non-technical users but few mining pools, exchanges etc. also considered=
miners signaling as some voting process.
>
> Best I could do at that moment was share this link: https://bitcoin.stack=
exchange.com/questions/97043/is-there-an-active-list-of-bips-currently-open=
-for-voting/
>
> However I am sure there are lot of people who still think miners vote dur=
ing signaling. Opinions of few developers on MASF vs UASF also adds more co=
nfusion to this thing. I could not think of any solution to solve this prob=
lem.
Yes, given most of the arguments given against activation at the end
of the period regardless of mining signaling, it seems sadly it's not
just users but developers too. They seem to believe that miners must
chose for users with bip8(false) because (according to them) with
bip8(true) it is developers who decide for users, and they don't want
to decide for users: they want miners to decide for users.
They don't seem to believe users can actually chose for themselves, sadly.
In the next softfork, sadly, probably the same discussions will be
repeated, the same rational arguments will be ignored and activation
will be once again done, in my opinion, the wrong way and most users
(many more, as we grow in numbers) will remain confused in the same
way and confusing the newcomers they explain bitcoin to.
> --
> Prayank
>
> A3B1 E430 2298 178F
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
