summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/44/2337d8b03d9ff2ccd820774fb070726c35491c
blob: 3b2513c0d4ab8254626379eb2afa0215f46d0cd1 (plain)
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
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
Return-Path: <arielluaces@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 311B0C0001
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sun,  7 Mar 2021 21:13:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1267E40149
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sun,  7 Mar 2021 21:13:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.199
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id uNZDvxlbyzaf
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sun,  7 Mar 2021 21:13:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-pg1-x536.google.com (mail-pg1-x536.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::536])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 522FD40147
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sun,  7 Mar 2021 21:13:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pg1-x536.google.com with SMTP id o38so5114814pgm.9
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sun, 07 Mar 2021 13:13:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
 h=in-reply-to:references:thread-topic:user-agent:mime-version
 :content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:date:to:message-id;
 bh=QF0HxvaPJQfdqAIsLbOb6ikXW5gTC/8nxnMy+J7mizE=;
 b=vG2iuoc+d1W6D/BsfCGuXE8chKgqc2bLDo8h8xCeVGjDiz+aviWn8ge8pyT3xLb0B5
 /ymqTV1J9grMAFvtqVRpr6i2XcP8/37FO3i1Duz4uaD0+A8RIeo+Icqeo6bDBVwzxfMr
 I5d1Glmn7ca9xMkIAS3djbR1UqeO9O7ecUzJz8zVHrwP/OkNfP8WVt0Ia/kQkE2oos0s
 MdjLkC0F3sgr3OK9iZfNvJGwQuridX99gmyewW2lMKmZdHe9HuKpw+JwC3pmzNgORBTU
 spKSjvbDzWXdnd7B91moYaoRSujtKUm3EHZFPPUwcFkI3KXVE8xyJ1VeKsmcICiMQ1fS
 fphA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:in-reply-to:references:thread-topic:user-agent
 :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:date:to
 :message-id;
 bh=QF0HxvaPJQfdqAIsLbOb6ikXW5gTC/8nxnMy+J7mizE=;
 b=JM91eGsYDicGqdL60SfzOrXT+4NjTuN4c+g00HysNyqND+C2aLp1797pyVjKhrSkNy
 R1D3rdirW3B9uZMp1SEbh0/VqVYO4VWvQqxJJn3dCD5hcUK3cGqqdjBItTwb06Jdq4x6
 tRDABM1tlgjI0h3ORzQ+8VnkBvT1sRvL1UA09Tkb3UBUADJZ6QXvUPLCIcjax3bSPpHy
 yq1huWnkQiOi4zm2JOb00NmsHuT+dS6CGHL0oJAdgDa41OAB5ZUd4H2h/CdN0KQyaGQS
 bzPmi3hDwnInO3R0C7xbcOJCeavts3HtCBEs0C6+OkfiWrzT5oETzSYcO4j3tUgnNClS
 z6SA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ahVSn4kpdhuOxpURmmsxIWC9XvsyiXaIml+MUEQmzkeDp+/bT
 wNat1xAMalu3gQa0/wpgDz8ACxK5phU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw8GD8L+f5wx1UH4+w7UAGQDGkElp+u6ocotUSYcI2JO8PbUdMO8HjmtYZSbcDQF5QmWUtsRg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:23c5:b029:1e6:2f2e:a438 with SMTP id
 g5-20020a056a0023c5b02901e62f2ea438mr18725534pfc.75.1615151630724; 
 Sun, 07 Mar 2021 13:13:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.180.209.19] ([199.119.235.150])
 by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d10sm8602291pgl.72.2021.03.07.13.13.49
 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256);
 Sun, 07 Mar 2021 13:13:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5a779c13-8ebf-5052-5bf7-846f970c21ef@spiller.com>
References: <5a779c13-8ebf-5052-5bf7-846f970c21ef@spiller.com>
X-Referenced-Uid: 24263
Thread-Topic: [bitcoin-dev] Yet another Taproot activation logic
X-Blue-Identity: !l=693&o=96429&fo=98593&pl=559&po=0&qs=PREFIX&f=HTML&n=Ariel%20Lorenzo-Luaces&e=arielluaces%40gmail.com&m=!%3AZjEwN2MyYjMtOWE0OC00NzJhLWEzYTQtYjc3MTEzNTNhODJm%3ASU5CT1g%3D%3AMjQyNjM%3D%3AANSWERED&p=556&q=SHOW
User-Agent: Android
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----OV75VPEWZRDKSDUI74RBMGYOHSESG4"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Local-Message-Id: <baad4898-6605-4edc-ad13-0f74289484ae@gmail.com>
From: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2021 13:13:47 -0800
To: Carlo Spiller <carlo@spiller.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <baad4898-6605-4edc-ad13-0f74289484ae@gmail.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 07 Mar 2021 21:27:44 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Yet another Taproot activation logic
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, 07 Mar 2021 21:13:53 -0000

------OV75VPEWZRDKSDUI74RBMGYOHSESG4
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8

Hi Carlo

This your proposal is similar to the Simple Majority Activation p=
roposal (SMA)=2E The difference is that your proposal has the final activat=
ion threshold set to 80% and SMA has it set to 51% https://lists=2Elinuxfou=
ndation=2Eorg/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-March/018587=2Ehtml

The problem w=
ith what you're proposing is what do users do if signaling is somewhere bet=
ween 51% to 79%? Users that want to promote a UASF know that their miner ma=
jority can activate Taproot and activate without the 21% to 49% of miners n=
eeding to signal (or purposefully stalling)=2E A UASF knows they have major=
ity mining power so there is little risk to them and a big reward (activati=
ng Taproot) so they are incentivized to do a UASF=2E

A UASF with a miner m=
ajority can scare everyone else about them being at risk of big reorgs to g=
ain traction and followers=2E

With the same proposal but the final thresho=
ld set to 51% instead of 80% there can't be risk of a UASF because if 51% i=
s not reached they know they don't have enough miner support to keep the ch=
ain together=2E

If support is less than 50% a UASF movement needs to hard =
fork anyway to change the PoW (for protection) and change addresses to prev=
ent double spends=2E

I really like the SMA proposal with 51% because it re=
moves the incentive to do a UASF=2E

Cheers
Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces


On Mar 7=
, 2021, 6:37 AM, at 6:37 AM, Carlo Spiller via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lis=
ts=2Elinuxfoundation=2Eorg> wrote:
>Hi everybody
>
>I'm new to this list, b=
ut not new to Bitcoin, having skin in the game 
>since 2014=2E I was there =
for the scaling war and the drama around
>SegWit, 
>as a simple user=2E Thi=
s time, I run my own full node and follow 
>development=2E I hope to bring =
something new to the table=2E
>
>Having witnessed the miner's unwillingness=
 to activate SegWit truly 
>makes me concerened for a simple LOT=3Dfalse=2E=
 After reading the
>discussion 
>now for some time and thinking about it my=
self, I have come to the 
>following proposal=2E
>
>Initially deploy with L=
OT=3Dfalse and an activation threshold of 95% of 
>miner signaling=2E
>
>*I=
FF* after 6 months Taproot is not activated by MASF, BUT at least 80%
>
>of=
 hashpower signaled for the upgrade, LOT gets a lock-in date another
>6 
>m=
onths later and the threshold for MASF is lowered to 90%=2E
>
>If after the=
 initial 6 months of signaling with LOT=3Dfalse, 80% is not 
>reached, the =
proposal expires=2E
>
>This way, a small percent of hashpower does not get =
to stall
>activation, 
>rather, 80% of hashpower can activate LOT=3Dtrue, a=
nd later, 90% can 
>activate Taproot=2E If a flaw is found in Taproot in th=
e first six months
>
>(unlikely anyway), miners simply don't signal and the=
 proposal expires=2E
>
>If miners don't signal at all, only six months are =
lost, before a new 
>activation logic can be deployed=2E
>
>Don't mind this=
 if something similar was already proposed somewhere
>else=2E
>
>Best
>
>Ca=
rlo
>
>_______________________________________________
>bitcoin-dev mailing=
 list
>bitcoin-dev@lists=2Elinuxfoundation=2Eorg
>https://lists=2Elinuxfoun=
dation=2Eorg/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

------OV75VPEWZRDKSDUI74RBMGYOHSESG4
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head></head><body><div dir=3D"auto">Hi Carlo<br><br></div>
<div dir=
=3D"auto">This your proposal is similar to the Simple Majority Activation p=
roposal (SMA)=2E The difference is that your proposal has the final activat=
ion threshold set to 80% and SMA has it set to 51% <a href=3D"https://lists=
=2Elinuxfoundation=2Eorg/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-March/018587=2Ehtml">ht=
tps://lists=2Elinuxfoundation=2Eorg/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-March/018587=
=2Ehtml</a><br><br></div>
<div dir=3D"auto">The problem with what you're pr=
oposing is what do users do if signaling is somewhere between 51% to 79%? U=
sers that want to promote a UASF know that their miner majority can activat=
e Taproot and activate without the 21% to 49% of miners needing to signal (=
or purposefully stalling)=2E A UASF knows they have majority mining power s=
o there is little risk to them and a big reward (activating Taproot) so the=
y are incentivized to do a UASF=2E<br><br></div>
<div dir=3D"auto">A UASF w=
ith a miner majority can scare everyone else about them being at risk of bi=
g reorgs to gain traction and followers=2E<br><br></div>
<div dir=3D"auto">=
With the same proposal but the final threshold set to 51% instead of 80% th=
ere can't be risk of a UASF because if 51% is not reached they know they do=
n't have enough miner support to keep the chain together=2E<br><br></div>
<=
div dir=3D"auto">If support is less than 50% a UASF movement needs to hard =
fork anyway to change the PoW (for protection) and change addresses to prev=
ent double spends=2E<br><br></div>
<div dir=3D"auto">I really like the SMA =
proposal with 51% because it removes the incentive to do a UASF=2E<br><br><=
/div>
<div dir=3D"auto">Cheers<br></div>
<div dir=3D"auto">Ariel Lorenzo-Lu=
aces<br></div>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote" >On Mar 7, 2021, at 6:37 AM, Carl=
o Spiller via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists=2Elinuxfo=
undation=2Eorg" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists=2Elinuxfoundation=2Eorg=
</a>&gt; wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0=
pt 0=2E8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">=

<pre class=3D"blue">Hi everybody<br><br>I'm new to this list, but not new =
to Bitcoin, having skin in the game <br>since 2014=2E I was there for the s=
caling war and the drama around SegWit, <br>as a simple user=2E This time, =
I run my own full node and follow <br>development=2E I hope to bring someth=
ing new to the table=2E<br><br>Having witnessed the miner's unwillingness t=
o activate SegWit truly <br>makes me concerened for a simple LOT=3Dfalse=2E=
 After reading the discussion <br>now for some time and thinking about it m=
yself, I have come to the <br>following proposal=2E<br><br>Initially deploy=
 with LOT=3Dfalse and an activation threshold of 95% of <br>miner signaling=
=2E<br><br>*IFF* after 6 months Taproot is not activated by MASF, BUT at le=
ast 80% <br>of hashpower signaled for the upgrade, LOT gets a lock-in date =
another 6 <br>months later and the threshold for MASF is lowered to 90%=2E<=
br><br>If after the initial 6 months of signaling with LOT=3Dfalse, 80% is =
not <br>reached, the proposal expires=2E<br><br>This way, a small percent o=
f hashpower does not get to stall activation, <br>rather, 80% of hashpower =
can activate LOT=3Dtrue, and later, 90% can <br>activate Taproot=2E If a fl=
aw is found in Taproot in the first six months <br>(unlikely anyway), miner=
s simply don't signal and the proposal expires=2E <br>If miners don't signa=
l at all, only six months are lost, before a new <br>activation logic can b=
e deployed=2E<br><br>Don't mind this if something similar was already propo=
sed somewhere else=2E<br><br>Best<br><br>Carlo<br><br><hr><br>bitcoin-dev m=
ailing list<br>bitcoin-dev@lists=2Elinuxfoundation=2Eorg<br><a href=3D"http=
s://lists=2Elinuxfoundation=2Eorg/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lis=
ts=2Elinuxfoundation=2Eorg/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br></pre></bloc=
kquote></div></body></html>
------OV75VPEWZRDKSDUI74RBMGYOHSESG4--