path: root/e1/895b31f113ba7e281ed9617e02c4319dca1679

Return-Path: <steven.j.lee@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A683C0001
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu,  4 Mar 2021 16:00:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E25D4326E
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu,  4 Mar 2021 16:00:30 +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: 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 hUDIxpzorvP6
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu,  4 Mar 2021 16:00:27 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-ej1-x62f.google.com (mail-ej1-x62f.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62f])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B7594326C
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu,  4 Mar 2021 16:00:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62f.google.com with SMTP id mm21so50041771ejb.12
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu, 04 Mar 2021 08:00:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
 :cc; bh=/6RSmVL5bVDc6fuzuCi7pMSukvMKpnlNWSVHqVCUFrc=;
 b=CfV4vF+Rd6FCp2lDFbW1ruMiHGV50hv6iWQHqIVM9oPO6Imjt6L8Yue1oVL70dUy9j
 KmcIhnO9HRt/I5sM84G3ejWecO2rXiH6Y4zAFczMb2daCHb0WkbteUt2DgXxUWBpXoA6
 7S3Yt2diBLFaYzza4m780umICEWuIrXcfglDlBUO903IRRIPQaV8Ga2kG0dp7EB4Qp4P
 AEUnqz6BYDF6JVxlTgwfXg0zRnGADSJj5rITWL56LRz0d8oK7YguIiFLGW4i7THSRRWl
 +ju/gPD4GbUirrtUrAaArAf1U/P6MSIQNMtWQUuyrb9Jh/kjJ+OeYeuQUxvs4U6HDds9
 ELfw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=/6RSmVL5bVDc6fuzuCi7pMSukvMKpnlNWSVHqVCUFrc=;
 b=ZkM9EJx35XjYaa4FlWMeRk3LvHqKswafYM6jO2N921sEmQpPcEynamQE5WeQ/5B3S7
 8LA/OYJ3JkJVDmWUnvpIEcdEOtfLVzuNDfM6ukWpQvhsyUycMhxbIBodfXziBy7HyiBH
 Q6ZqgvP+xfWxMgkjIiYN7XIHq04jUDNbGJqEWV5M537PdtIpLvPAE+FZ1WSiZUgBhudZ
 J3e/L936zCGcMiTvbhOg0k99Ns8sq/q8KmegLog07eacYd6lLbRsf7LDR3iUCe0g4auS
 icZuUjvnn8REzjye/NqIBkRkkmltL2Mv3oPmlYCLAJXJYr4lPUZgWksZSG/CV4Ie9yGS
 yXkg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531gPnsG5X3qOG5bkgHJwZ9cP1xPtIklIgM4J9jGdVohAqayDxmJ
 smI0nHkiDy2QCmXEcyMyt4h8GeRv6vUIIBEkwJSNTH6i
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxh9GNgU2mkbU693gPpbWw+dy6wugSG8lJv2FY0aNKRnhmNfLGjsANTsmld6d2/DQ0fEQzlV6ow43I8JRPPHQc=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:a016:: with SMTP id
 p22mr4934732ejy.456.1614873620027; 
 Thu, 04 Mar 2021 08:00:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJXtxW=Rix7Q-ra=CADsB00r13pr5DC_76QMGcYrt74FxAWEbQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKaEYhKszo_0KHdMzmFtBVO2sL5Bh382e+koAL-0KMEtR29Opg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKaEYhKszo_0KHdMzmFtBVO2sL5Bh382e+koAL-0KMEtR29Opg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Steve Lee <steven.j.lee@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 08:00:08 -0800
Message-ID: <CABu3BAd-xZu1QohwbJS3sRpHYOHz2T1ZUUSoYUKZ7yf9Tarc=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>, 
 Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007a9d0205bcb810b1"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 18:15:21 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] activation mechanism considerations
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: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 16:00:30 -0000

--0000000000007a9d0205bcb810b1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

+1 for calm and patience as we navigate the activation mechanism.

On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 3:24 AM Melvin Carvalho via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 10:07, John Rand via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Consensus is important for both taproot and separately for the activation
>> mechanism.  There are more soft-forks that Bitcoin will need, so it is
>> important to achieve positive progress on the activation topic also, not
>> get impatient and rush something ill-considered.  Not all future soft-forks
>> maybe as widely supported as taproot, and yet it could become existentially
>> critical that Bitcoin prevails in achieving a future upgrade in dramatic
>> circumstances, even against powerful interests counter to Bitcoin user and
>> investors interests.  We should treat the activation topic in a considered
>> way and with decorum, provide tight non-emotive reasoning devoid of
>> frustration and impatience.  This is a low drama and convenient time to
>> incrementally improve activation.  People have varied views about the
>> deciding factor, or even which factors resulted in segwit activating after
>> BIP 141 failed using BIP 9.  We do not have to solve everything in one
>> step, incremental improvement is good, for complex unintuitive topics, to
>> learn as we go - and it should not be hard to do less badly than what
>> transpired leading up to BIP 148 and BIP 91.  Failure to upgrade if
>> permanent, or demoralizing to protocol researchers could be a systemic risk
>> in itself as there are more upgrades Bitcoin will need.  We are not Ents
>> but we should use our collective ingenuity to find an incremental
>> improvement for activation.
>>
>
> Great high level thoughts
>
> The Ents themselves were created in Tolkien's fork of Shakespeare, when he
> was frustrated to learn that trees didnt actually march :)
>
> Having followed standards for 10+ years consensus can be tricky
>
> IIRC last time with segwit there was a straw poll in the wiki where devs
> could express leanings in an informal, async way.  Something like that
> could be of value.
>
> There's an insightful spec written at the IETF "On Consensus and Humming
> in the IETF", then IMHO is worth reading
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
>
> That said, if we could find an incorruptible machine that could gather the
> highest fee tx from the mempool and post it every 10 minutes, bitcoin would
> largely run itself.  So, while understanding the gravity of each change, we
> could perhaps have the mindset that there are a finite number, such that
> when complete bitcoin will move to an endgame where for the user it 'just
> works', much like the internet.  If devs and changes are needed less, that
> could be viewed as a sign of success.  This is a hand wavy way of saying
> that forks could potentially be a diminishing issue over time
>
> Just my 2 satoshis
>
>
>>
>> John R
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

--0000000000007a9d0205bcb810b1
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">+1 for calm and patience as we navigate the activation me=
chanism.=C2=A0</div><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" cl=
ass=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 3:24 AM Melvin Carvalho via bitco=
in-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin=
-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D=
"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;borde=
r-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><di=
v dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><di=
v dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 10:07, John Rand v=
ia bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"=
 target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>=
</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;b=
order-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-c=
olor:rgb(204,204,204)"><div dir=3D"ltr">Consensus is important for both tap=
root and separately for the activation mechanism.=C2=A0 There are more soft=
-forks that Bitcoin will need, so it is important to achieve positive progr=
ess on the activation topic also, not get impatient and rush something ill-=
considered.=C2=A0 Not all future soft-forks maybe as widely supported as ta=
proot, and yet it could become existentially critical that Bitcoin prevails=
 in achieving a future upgrade in dramatic circumstances, even against powe=
rful interests counter to Bitcoin user and investors interests.=C2=A0 We sh=
ould treat the activation topic in a considered way and with decorum, provi=
de tight non-emotive reasoning devoid of frustration and impatience.=C2=A0 =
This is a low drama and convenient time to incrementally improve activation=
.=C2=A0 People have varied views about the deciding factor, or even which f=
actors resulted in segwit activating after BIP 141 failed using BIP 9.=C2=
=A0 We do not have to solve everything in one step, incremental improvement=
 is good, for complex unintuitive topics, to learn as we go - and it should=
 not be hard to do less badly than what transpired leading up to BIP 148 an=
d BIP 91.=C2=A0 Failure to upgrade if permanent, or demoralizing to protoco=
l researchers could be a systemic risk in itself as there are more upgrades=
 Bitcoin will need.=C2=A0 We are not Ents but we should use our collective =
ingenuity to find an incremental improvement for activation.</div></blockqu=
ote><div><br></div><div>Great high level thoughts</div><div><br></div><div>=
The Ents themselves were created in Tolkien&#39;s fork of Shakespeare, when=
 he was frustrated to learn that trees didnt actually march :)<br></div><di=
v><br></div><div>Having followed standards for 10+ years consensus can be t=
ricky</div><div><br></div><div>IIRC last time with segwit there was a straw=
 poll in the wiki where devs could express leanings in an informal, async w=
ay.=C2=A0 Something like that could be of value.<br></div><div><br></div><d=
iv>There&#39;s an insightful spec written at the IETF &quot;On Consensus an=
d Humming in the IETF&quot;, then IMHO is worth reading<br></div><div><br><=
/div><div><a href=3D"https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282" target=3D"_blank"=
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282</a></div><div><br></div><div>That said=
, if we could find an incorruptible machine that could gather the highest f=
ee tx from the mempool and post it every 10 minutes, bitcoin would largely =
run itself.=C2=A0 So, while understanding the gravity of each change, we co=
uld perhaps have the mindset that there are a finite number, such that when=
 complete bitcoin will move to an endgame where for the user it &#39;just w=
orks&#39;, much like the internet.=C2=A0 If devs and changes are needed les=
s, that could be viewed as a sign of success.=C2=A0 This is a hand wavy way=
 of saying that forks could potentially be a diminishing issue over time<br=
></div><div><br></div><div>Just my 2 satoshis<br></div></div></div><div dir=
=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-=
left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><div =
dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><br></div></div><div>John R</div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>

--0000000000007a9d0205bcb810b1--