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
|
Return-Path: <eric@voskuil.org>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1EAEC002F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 Jan 2022 23:00:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9420540159
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 Jan 2022 23:00:30 +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=voskuil-org.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 vQ_mNch5ZAE8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 Jan 2022 23:00:29 +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 smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E8F04010C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 Jan 2022 23:00:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pg1-x536.google.com with SMTP id p125so584888pga.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:00:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=voskuil-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112;
h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id
:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index
:content-language;
bh=nELnlXO1a0mvi2J5maJJVdZSMM/PH6cOC+TgWTcDJRk=;
b=FuGNYdjLPp0sqnHB9Ct+bVkQjy7KhH1OF+F6WZo9o9NLZIi6hrn3rbJt3hlRb5AgYL
MPHtxfQR49CuigFIx1yIxB9cG5yUberD79n9ekoi/L9OE1pVG9cMLFV9C/49lcHyn80X
DiyYXVKZ1ykq1IA8nGGvvWPBn4TuLfmMygQokFuPHR50Yr/dRuAtHYAC3iWSfdHRjUSo
C2vYtBygHp2y1yqZt0Fmku9xJxNhw1y3gDXsZWOPjjYx8KOXi5kPgIV5rNI9oNgH57Gg
8mJpBpMwN1NoH+w9IAayhc2gcEaS9LBvf/XaHplH85D4hCA1kxy1o86t2Yz42C+RBpkz
crGA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date
:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index
:content-language;
bh=nELnlXO1a0mvi2J5maJJVdZSMM/PH6cOC+TgWTcDJRk=;
b=Dyx0t/hqvj1XlLiFeTU62T0eLsNV6uIrsIdnApVGaJ6DdHvOx+QG2bPbfIA+wFnQGY
g19SAfXjDICH/s6n1OunmdldkdfPnA9dHcydu3tDGVmpXHsQSZFUhoOrDuzw8n6tX1XG
zp59FYQCkJ915qMZUYMtOmut0pXZ+Kk1dUMnn0ArKEjNRDH6hp4FJ2oUiTYYm0TODLvp
v9lUddKU4ixbjsOBZvT2GVboYCEs2/+k8JL6LWME2c6wJcfi0dmwXBaJCEbyHNyCqON6
vmoIlqE5E7Pp98WRFoxeKFpPsXJwClJOTIOLlinyWNfHIx/5feRgKikifR3jRkwW0ewO
fjNw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531tzH/2uh+X5oPjETl9wwpiEqUirJNHvv7NGly8yQMBgNLjwy7D
iL94LPGM0BWD7x52BBFUUEbCRrPCkVnl/Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyi8qvjMz/QFOFFvw0uUaeK2lhfiQ/0hBso3GL6TmQCgL3fFu8cyyrvAf/8HV+qwKA4A/LLjQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:3705:: with SMTP id e5mr24142258pga.258.1642546828417;
Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:00:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ERICDESKTOP ([2601:600:9c00:1d0::4623])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b199sm19721263pfb.104.2022.01.18.15.00.27
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:00:27 -0800 (PST)
From: <eric@voskuil.org>
To: "'Luke Dashjr'" <luke@dashjr.org>
References: <202201182119.02687.luke@dashjr.org>
<02cc01d80cb7$1339c050$39ad40f0$@voskuil.org>
<202201182209.46044.luke@dashjr.org>
In-Reply-To: <202201182209.46044.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:00:27 -0800
Message-ID: <000601d80cbf$2f6a1d80$8e3e5880$@voskuil.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQIXp3h1JQb5nuD7yIsGg/xB1hoY6AJU85EwAf0Gwt+rx5OScA==
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: 'Bitcoin Protocol Discussion' <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review
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, 18 Jan 2022 23:00:30 -0000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 2:10 PM
> To: eric@voskuil.org
> Cc: 'Bitcoin Protocol Discussion' <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review
>
> On Tuesday 18 January 2022 22:02:24 eric@voskuil.org wrote:
> > The only material distinction between BIP9 and BIP8 is that the latter
> > may activate without signaled support of hash power enforcement.
> >
> > As unenforced soft forks are not "backward compatible" they produce a
> > chain split.
>
> Enforcement of the Bitcoin consensus protocol is by users, not miners.
Given that I stated "hash power enforcement" it is quite clear that this is
in fact only produced by mining. You are misrepresenting my statement to
make an emotional appeal. Without "hash power enforcement", a soft fork is
NOT backward compatible.
"[enforcement of] consensus protocol" is of course by merchants, but that is
not the question at hand. The question is explicitly compatibility. Anyone
can activate a soft fork at any time, but without "hash power enforcement"
soft forks are NOT backward compatible.
> Softforks never produce a chain split. Miners can, and might try to do it
to cause disruption in retaliation, but the softfork itself does not.
Maybe you are trying to split hairs given the fact that blocks are produced
only by miners, so only miners can "cause" a split.
But through not intention ("disruption in retaliation") whatsoever by
mining, a soft fork will result in those activating the rule being split off
the original chain unless majority hash power enforces the rule. The fact
that doing nothing apart from deploying the rule will result in a split is
the very definition of NOT compatible.
I assume you will argue that the original chain is not "valid" and therefore
irrelevant (as if no chain split occurred). But again the point is about
compatibility. The appearance of multiple chains, which appear valid
according to either the previous or new rules, is obviously the
incompatibility.
I shouldn't have to point this out, but observed chain splits have occurred
in more the one large scale soft fork deployment. These splits have only
been resolved through hash power enforcement. In 2010 it took 51 blocks
before the current chain took the lead. In 2012 minority chains persisted
for months. The deployment of soft forks caused these splits, NOT the
actions of miners. And unless majority hash power eventually enforces it,
the soft fork branch necessarily dies.
> > It was for this reason alone that BIP8 never gained sufficient
> > support.
>
> BIP 8 in fact achieved consensus for Taproot activation.
Please define "achieved consensus", because by any definition I can imagine,
this is simply untrue.
> > This is one of the most misleading statements I've seen here. It's not
> > technically a lie, because it states what "should" happen. But it is
> > clearly intended to lead people to believe that BIP8 was actually used
> > ("again") - it was not. ST was some technical tweaks to BIP9.
>
> BIP 8 was used to activate Taproot.
No, it wasn't. I find it hard to imaging how you rationalize such grossly
misleading statements.
> > The outright deception around this one topic has led to significant
> > unnecessary conflict in the community. Make your argument, but make it
> > honestly.
>
> You are the one attempting to deceive here.
That is for others to decide. I appreciate your responses above, since they
certainly help clarify what is happening here.
e
|
