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
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
|
Return-Path: <earonesty@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73977BFE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:48:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qk0-f169.google.com (mail-qk0-f169.google.com
[209.85.220.169])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 559671A7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:48:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qk0-f169.google.com with SMTP id h67so50107808qke.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 20 Apr 2017 08:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
:subject:to:cc;
bh=7LnlwvtsAnFrnjblS/TWiGG/SeeclOy6HzEBNa1p/UA=;
b=otvxInXR6JFxpGRXKmv3GBhq8QYtxZHLnVtBiboZi7o/cVbuXHjHTSWVCmcmkHSlef
kbNQGI+XHFdwIxiWtELqfIYd4VKDtJw8gjPraeeO0c78roEVxi5cD1hZJ3xoDKcakYHC
ci4eLPDMZH/AKIFVbbZPqQ+EvONahl+F2woq2c//GGE9tLiv386f9CAAn6lU6OcgbN0+
a+yiCF5MIBp4cjuZPBbZAqGH7Gni6F/pE21FuACvQTGHZzrBEGUqpwkQG3DvIK6I12BQ
lYqpZ49bRGc+l34x00PKHXthFXq+XD5QylkCaIPTUiJaIndVl4uFqgExVzvEGovx0tSH
Bwow==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
:date:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=7LnlwvtsAnFrnjblS/TWiGG/SeeclOy6HzEBNa1p/UA=;
b=pqoOQ9IKTlfcmpwuK0jxw1pSlr6OaV/cLPec9YDrFAJ6zQNLL6slGeHxg3VGPlBeYf
4LtfbatWjE7Q8NTLA/dzQVozE/3pL5pJFQSuB2AMRehwc1qEg85ZbZJZ7QibPP81I4Q4
LXv5VHkUFzGtdnGLrRlyjFmBFOcN+RIGq8IOk5KcTN5+jta9OzL1bPcnF9fazKe63S6q
D/JQGRQtW0nLFxbJgHJVzFCRlFh4kFZfMpQilHI610ApNJzHWQUDbZdoTfE83Lr33/9x
ICAZ/dgs4G1JgvYGcUpej46rvJOlhLn/5UMWr9U0GTL9C+IP5rRoUc0XJk+0pNlL7M8t
v0+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/60+f8Lz6b4c9o+AgTA4P/2WYTEzi9xpZlo+XJaG2yFQOnPudPc
aU+E7mpkbH5aaPkoQYj0jI7bhW88zA==
X-Received: by 10.55.104.139 with SMTP id d133mr8169411qkc.56.1492703302407;
Thu, 20 Apr 2017 08:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: earonesty@gmail.com
Received: by 10.200.0.146 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 08:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAMBsKS9P1wBNS9u1Ly5USQ=YTd-m8uMK-xZGYkYa4J=f+jz3ow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOG=w-saibrGeOSaLFtcFo_D+2Gw4zoNA-brS=aPuBoyGuPCZA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgSGNErAHmZCeKr+agnS4YEwf57yAmvv70XzkkqRfvdDig@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJowKg+Y=1pa7CJq0SWBi4d=_q306=FnwUiAhkgJwGWWQjV2Pw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMBsKS9P1wBNS9u1Ly5USQ=YTd-m8uMK-xZGYkYa4J=f+jz3ow@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:48:21 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: cyU_Wrrl7zZEAPwivMLKkq_6uCA
Message-ID: <CAJowKgK9r_V0q+JoBha=KFL45gKz9HKjnFJyWXrKGrHgFbvL_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alphonse Pace <alp.bitcoin@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c055e9c185ef7054d9b12d4
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
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: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:53:32 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF
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: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:48:24 -0000
--94eb2c055e9c185ef7054d9b12d4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Bitcoin must level the playing field for mining or it is fundamentally
broken. And there are two obvious solutions:
1. WTXID commitment has as a flag day upgrade. It's a fix to a fairly
serious security issue - made even worse by the existence of patents on the
code.
2. Embed the code for performing a covert ASICBOOST into Bitcoin core's
reference implementation. But, since this would violate patents held in
China and the U.S., it could be a problem.
Of these, I think the first should be far less controversial.
One or the other must be done - if we can't fix security and licensing
problems in Bitcoin, what can we fix?
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Alphonse Pace <alp.bitcoin@gmail.com>
wrote:
> A WTXID commitment would (likely) need to be a UASF.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> The "UASF movement" seems a bit premature to me - I doubt UASF will be
>> necessary if a WTXID commitment is tried first. I think that should be
>> first-efforts focus.
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev <
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> triggering BIP141 activation, and therefore not enabling the new
>>>> consensus rules on already deployed full nodes. BIP148 is making an
>>>> explicit choice to favor dragging along those users which have upgraded to
>>>> BIP141 support over those miners who have failed to upgrade.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I do not follow the argument that a critical design feature of a
>>> particular "user activated soft fork" could be that it is users don't need
>>> to be involved. If the goal is user activation I would think that the
>>> expectation would be that the overwhelming majority of users would be
>>> upgrading to do it, if that isn't the case, then it isn't really a user
>>> activated softfork-- it's something else.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On an aside, I'm somewhat disappointed that you have decided to make a
>>>> public statement against the UASF proposal. Not because we disagree -- that
>>>> is fine -- but because any UASF must be a grassroots effort and
>>>> endorsements (or denouncements) detract from that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So it has to be supported by the public but I can't say why I don't
>>> support it? This seems extremely suspect to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>
--94eb2c055e9c185ef7054d9b12d4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>Bitcoin must level the playing field for mi=
ning or it is fundamentally broken.=C2=A0=C2=A0 And there are two obvious s=
olutions:<br><br>1. WTXID commitment has as a flag day upgrade. It's a =
fix to a fairly serious security issue - made even worse by the existence o=
f patents on the code.=C2=A0=C2=A0 <br><br>2. Embed the code for performing=
a covert ASICBOOST into Bitcoin core's reference implementation.=C2=A0=
=C2=A0 But, since this would violate patents held in China and the U.S., it=
could be a problem.<br><br></div></div>Of these, I think the first should =
be far less controversial.=C2=A0=C2=A0 <br><br>One or the other must be don=
e - if we can't fix security and licensing problems in Bitcoin, what ca=
n we fix?</div><div><div><br></div></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><=
br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Alphonse Pa=
ce <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:alp.bitcoin@gmail.com" target=3D=
"_blank">alp.bitcoin@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">A WTXID commitment would (likely) need to be=
a UASF.<div><br></div></div><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at=
11:17 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"m=
ailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@=
lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>The "UASF movement" seems a b=
it premature to me - I doubt UASF will be necessary if a WTXID commitment i=
s tried first.=C2=A0=C2=A0 I think that should be first-efforts focus.<br><=
/div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><=
div class=3D"m_-1452426406923278833h5">On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Gre=
gory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoi=
n-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxf=
ounda<wbr>tion.org</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex"><div><div class=3D"m_-1452426406923278833h5"><div dir=3D"ltr"=
><span>On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev <s=
pan dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=
" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>></spa=
n> wrote:<br></span><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><span><div class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-le=
ft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span style=3D"backgro=
und-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">triggering BIP141 activation, and therefore =
not enabling the new=20
consensus rules on already deployed full nodes. BIP148 is making an=20
explicit choice to favor dragging along those users which have upgraded=20
to BIP141 support over those miners who have failed to upgrade.<br></span><=
/div></blockquote></div></span><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br><div>I do not=
follow the argument that a critical design feature of a particular "u=
ser activated soft fork" could be that it is users don't need to b=
e involved.=C2=A0 If the goal is user activation I would think that the exp=
ectation would be that the overwhelming majority of users would be upgradin=
g to do it, if that isn't the case, then it isn't really a user act=
ivated softfork-- it's something else.<br></div><span><div>=C2=A0</div>=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span style=3D"background-c=
olor:rgba(255,255,255,0)">On
an aside, I'm somewhat disappointed that you have decided to make a=20
public statement against the UASF proposal. Not because we disagree --=20
that is fine -- but because any UASF must be a grassroots effort and=20
endorsements (or denouncements) detract from that.</span></div></blockquote=
><div><br></div></span><div>So it has to be supported by the public but I c=
an't say why I don't support it? This seems extremely suspect to me=
.</div><br><div>=C2=A0</div></div></div></div>
<br></div></div><span>______________________________<wbr>_________________<=
br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
<br></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
--94eb2c055e9c185ef7054d9b12d4--
|
