path: root/93/98a85642c902a2e485fe017b524fc009657005

Return-Path: <arielluaces@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 109ABC0001
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue,  2 Mar 2021 19:36:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC335431AE
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue,  2 Mar 2021 19:36:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.197
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.197 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001,
 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 R9Ag92RxZe0q
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue,  2 Mar 2021 19:36:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-pf1-f169.google.com (mail-pf1-f169.google.com
 [209.85.210.169])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EFD24319B
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue,  2 Mar 2021 19:36:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pf1-f169.google.com with SMTP id t29so14483679pfg.11
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 02 Mar 2021 11:36:58 -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:cc:message-id;
 bh=BcVwLqjGV10HcZgFaXcBEQ6LtDFih/+VnVigc+06eQA=;
 b=ixEV7lFlyutgvlLi7CUTy0vmt7JnVO4J/vlSPsJ3Bqq6Temf4QWGSXaRtgWnuKqwyb
 5ZGTTPOgtUQMV+TmOSvmjTqRIAgopqG1+JkEyBde9NdzhdoWynwM29XN4aiwDalVO8Ff
 UEi0eMdr2/cKrVSIHQK9W7SMIxuzZll7jwzvx0UgT3Hcu+yz3wMb/Ab7lkt0Qo3HjQUn
 C7vVyFpByCqXRNzUUdOHkeVssLGZfJGLB1rXn+zZhACMd7GWCTulrGONRoJNtz8PKJPq
 WqunrWW3fMfBAxeuQuE1ZVKq0IK1s3U3hnURzyw9wmoJJ2Jji4qcIefofdHIb23S1BVI
 hZUw==
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:cc
 :message-id;
 bh=BcVwLqjGV10HcZgFaXcBEQ6LtDFih/+VnVigc+06eQA=;
 b=MzUorHDfIj4TK6DuHOeH/A5PiyQYgzOOnihbg+MgHx1D0G1GcdX6wOK2FFyBMZ/usQ
 89gk1iTdRaHVZCYr2vDbND0SYPfwpqAEFmT1Y8ive4+l0t1Zy7jM95EysPalLREW3eDx
 AxW95ftJ5z5+mGaMTR5zeobBOm+L7NCQh7YDloZFxP8EIuUfhH4hNWrHYpKEtVCyOTO0
 4uuBzsNoZ6fM7nbUzon9L3oWejYyAi5DPIqRy0mbAIty3G1q397X/kQ26iSLlAU0Ejbk
 SOlK9pTUvIcl7WNOqCpmm0mNVgmBgdByEJlV8FAvIIjlfg2J75byi6WxhGaVC+d6p4gG
 We7Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533coHm5UjLmwlNDKIw1WLmCAN9o+PN7I/OOBfXu0Q83zbxzbvv2
 Yl5Trbyft7MS1ujQjQL1ayE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwtqH/PxCm7sbDMWfgHK6QShXk+1+Ly9tU5HHUMBVCkOY6rFH7a5SzfAy9ObotrExH6WK2w3g==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:2318:: with SMTP id j24mr13395574pgj.134.1614713817746; 
 Tue, 02 Mar 2021 11:36:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.168.106] (d142-179-7-88.bchsia.telus.net.
 [142.179.7.88])
 by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a2sm21631748pfi.64.2021.03.02.11.36.56
 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256);
 Tue, 02 Mar 2021 11:36:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <202103021857.39275.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CAFvNmHR0WwMp0eNQhvs9uFFSq3wGdHVTFUFmByLLdz7EUjg8uQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <b56bd582-e605-4389-96ce-c1cb0c58f1ad@gmail.com>
 <202103021857.39275.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Referenced-Uid: 24169
Thread-Topic: Re: [bitcoin-dev] UASF (LOT=true) kick off meeting - Tuesday
 March 2nd 19:00 UTC on ##uasf IRC channel
User-Agent: Android
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----D3WBVVTYAKYGAQSF3D2XW8DH5MOU49"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Local-Message-Id: <99431100-cf4a-48f7-afd1-37ab7fa92c0a@gmail.com>
From: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2021 11:36:54 -0800
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Message-ID: <99431100-cf4a-48f7-afd1-37ab7fa92c0a@gmail.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 02 Mar 2021 20:20:52 +0000
Cc: Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@gmail.com>,
 bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] UASF (LOT=true) kick off meeting - Tuesday March
	2nd 19:00 UTC on ##uasf IRC channel
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, 02 Mar 2021 19:36:59 -0000

------D3WBVVTYAKYGAQSF3D2XW8DH5MOU49
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8

You can try to redefine all you want but it doesn't make what you're saying=
 true=2E

A soft fork is a constriction of rules

A 51% attack is a soft fo=
rk with majority mining power=2E

I didn't say that LOT=3Dtrue does it I sa=
id that it must achieve 51% miner support to pose reorg risks to force apat=
hetic users into paying attention=2E Please read my message again=2E

Your =
definition of invalid has no power here=2E We are all painfully aware of yo=
ur semantic mental gymnastics=2E

Cheers
Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces


On Mar 2, 2=
021, 10:58 AM, at 10:58 AM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr=2Eorg> wrote:
>On Tues=
day 02 March 2021 18:22:35 Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces via bitcoin-dev
>wrote:
>> =
I'm realizing that a clear advantage of LOT=3Dfalse is that it can
>happen
=
>> without the need for a social movement=2E All that is really needed is
>=
the
>> convincing of 95% miners=2E Apathetic users will never notice any ki=
nd
>of
>> service disruption no matter the success or failure of the
>activ=
ation=2E This
>> is obviously why it naturally became the default activatio=
n method=2E
>
>No=2E Miners enforcing rules without the social support is a=
 51% attack,
>not a 
>softfork=2E
>
>> While LOT=3Dtrue, on the other hand,=
 must be able to 51% the blockchain
>to
>> win the apathetic users=2E But t=
hen the reorgs will not be pretty=2E Or
>if it
>> ever clearly gets over th=
e 51% hurdle then all apathetic users now
>need to
>> scramble to use the r=
ogue client to be safe from reorgs=2E Either way
>it's
>> disruptive=2E
>
>=
No, LOT=3DTrue doesn't do this=2E It only happens if miners choose to
>crea=
te an 
>invalid chain, which they could do at any time with or without a
>s=
oftfork 
>involved=2E
>
>Luke

------D3WBVVTYAKYGAQSF3D2XW8DH5MOU49
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head></head><body><div dir=3D"auto">You can try to redefine all you =
want but it doesn't make what you're saying true=2E<br><br></div>
<div dir=
=3D"auto">A soft fork is a constriction of rules<br><br></div>
<div dir=3D"=
auto">A 51% attack is a soft fork with majority mining power=2E<br><br></di=
v>
<div dir=3D"auto">I didn't say that LOT=3Dtrue does it I said that it mu=
st achieve 51% miner support to pose reorg risks to force apathetic users i=
nto paying attention=2E Please read my message again=2E<br><br></div>
<div =
dir=3D"auto">Your definition of invalid has no power here=2E We are all pai=
nfully aware of your semantic mental gymnastics=2E<br><br></div>
<div dir=
=3D"auto">Cheers<br></div>
<div dir=3D"auto">Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces<br></div>=

<div class=3D"gmail_quote" >On Mar 2, 2021, at 10:58 AM, Luke Dashjr &lt;<=
a href=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr=2Eorg" target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr=2Eorg</a>=
&gt; wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0=
=2E8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pr=
e class=3D"blue">On Tuesday 02 March 2021 18:22:35 Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces via=
 bitcoin-dev wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0=
pt 0pt 1ex 0=2E8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> I'=
m realizing that a clear advantage of LOT=3Dfalse is that it can happen<br>=
 without the need for a social movement=2E All that is really needed is the=
<br> convincing of 95% miners=2E Apathetic users will never notice any kind=
 of<br> service disruption no matter the success or failure of the activati=
on=2E This<br> is obviously why it naturally became the default activation =
method=2E<br></blockquote><br>No=2E Miners enforcing rules without the soci=
al support is a 51% attack, not a <br>softfork=2E<br><br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0=2E8ex; border-left: 1px sol=
id #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> While LOT=3Dtrue, on the other hand, must =
be able to 51% the blockchain to<br> win the apathetic users=2E But then th=
e reorgs will not be pretty=2E Or if it<br> ever clearly gets over the 51% =
hurdle then all apathetic users now need to<br> scramble to use the rogue c=
lient to be safe from reorgs=2E Either way it's<br> disruptive=2E<br></bloc=
kquote><br>No, LOT=3DTrue doesn't do this=2E It only happens if miners choo=
se to create an <br>invalid chain, which they could do at any time with or =
without a softfork <br>involved=2E<br><br>Luke<br></pre></blockquote></div>=
</body></html>
------D3WBVVTYAKYGAQSF3D2XW8DH5MOU49--