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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 938511B85
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:58:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com (mail-wi0-f178.google.com
[209.85.212.178])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD21A128
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:58:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicge5 with SMTP id ge5so208413276wic.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=pgaT7ZqW5QPCzF2n/a5KAYf1kfpkLiqB594/VSCFHlc=;
b=mnTRYEJi6zI8q+ABdmbyj8UCvCYYgXAh0iVAivrJQFYBBaKYq7mw8O00ksZ5LJJLl5
pty5YAEipuWrBMjIQV8rzBUnPfunp1F8jfo0nes5heEc2OQsXkASaXbkJWutKv4IS7sd
OtdlTq4ALfDDSOHVJy5sH56KKkSMIxgr9MFe3LOVvc03Raf+L2mhpplVT0Q6z0YaoXhT
zwoRs/5ORb3qi4cUcSMZOYHGdfk5/p0gAlDgfhqvhxxMFgxBVAalIm6koW8CoxTW4exi
FuMGBw93v+RNHbB9SrdfKmG403sIvMuJ13EGh9a3YlMN85Tmr4b5zrgvfKlLL8j3Nu/p
Ro7g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnBkVdwWGy+Hmy5ndQhdW3pQktPgL6oC6Lw8phJNjUP17qX2hJwFqzYY7VGqgT6vHWqbJk/
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.8.106 with SMTP id q10mr5927581wia.92.1443635925573;
Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.114.199 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+w+GKRKGS=KZrLtiW8Zbn4EQH_TELfQR+TfrADCMXLR22Q+tw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org>
<CA+w+GKRCVr-9TVk66utp7xLRgTxNpxYoj3XQE-6y_N8JS6eO6Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgSEDGBd67m7i8zCgNRqtmQrZyZMj7a5TsYo41Dh=tdhHQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+w+GKRKGS=KZrLtiW8Zbn4EQH_TELfQR+TfrADCMXLR22Q+tw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:58:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrkv3T66=BCBiHYb9h8PY41TFCwpzVR_E7UM0c+QcK-Eg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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, 30 Sep 2015 17:58:47 -0000
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Several people have asked several times now: given the very real and widely
> acknowledged downsides that come with a soft fork, what is the specific
> benefit to end users of doing them?
As previously explained, the biggest advantage of softforks is that
assuming the hasrate majority upgrades, network convergence is
guaranteed.
I don't know of anyone else (apart from you) that believes that the
advantages of softforks are generally worse than those of hardforks.
I'm attempting to clarify everything related to consensus rule changes
in BIP99.
> Until that question is answered to my satisfaction I continue to object to
> this BIP on the grounds that the deployment creates financial risk
> unnecessarily. To repeat: CLTV does not have consensus at the moment.
But your argument is flawed because it assumes softforks are more
risky than hardforks.
You've been explained why this is not the case, so unless you can
explain what's more important for a consensus system than network
convergence I think we can still consider this consensus rule change
uncontroversial, just like BIP66 was (even if you were also unable to
understand the advantages of softforks back then, just like you are
unable to understand them now, as you just proved in your answer to my
explanation). Using BIP99's terminology, this is an "uncontroversial
softfork" and it's therefore the safest option for consensus rule
changes deployment.
I should definitely improve my explanation on why uncontroversial
softforks are preferrable to uncontroversial hardforks in most cases
(and maybe try to come up with an example in which a hardfork is
preferable). I should also explain the disadvantages of
uncontroversial softforks that you have pointed out several times. So
I will mention you in BIP99's PR once I update it with a new section
that talks about the trade offs of uncontroversial softforks vs
uncontroversial hardforks.
In the meantime I believe that we can safely move forwards with BIP65
(again, just like we did with BIP66 ) and I also believe that you, as
an expert in Bitcoin, will eventually be able to understand the
advantages of uncontroversial softforks.
With all due respect, I don't think we need to wait for you to
understand the advantages of softforks to move forward with BIP65,
just like we didn't need to wait for every developer and user to
understand BIP66 to deploy it.
You don't have specific complaints against the new script operator,
and you don't have an uncontroversial hardfork alternative design (or
implementation).
This is a feature that enables new contracts that are important to
Bitcoin. Please don't try to block it just to make a point about what
"uncontroversial" means.
|
