From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org,
Sancho Panza <sanch0panza@protonmail•com>
Cc: "luke_bipeditor@dashjr•org" <luke_bipeditor@dashjr•org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Generalized version bits voting (bip-genvbvoting)
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 18:01:51 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201704041801.51655.luke@dashjr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <PU5yHaeZtxR5ManpM0q7ZIN1pElEorBfO09u7ZIC-h81mQizYCZ5qNv89Tb2ZLNHbCktmV65q2Xkm1K3UckvVZLOWBMW7-riWYRY4HtFe1A=@protonmail.com>
On Monday, April 03, 2017 9:06:02 AM Sancho Panza via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> While BIP9 has served the community reasonably well until now, the
> author remarks several shortcomings in its approach:
>
> - it limits itself to backward-compatible changes, precluding its
> applicability to hard forks
BIP 9 doesn't limit itself, merely acknowledges the *inherent* nature of it
not being applicable to hardforks. BIP 9 provides a mechanism for having
miners coordinate softforks because they can make the upgrade process smoother
this way. But the same is not true of hardforks: miners are essentially
irrelevant to them, and cannot make the process any smoother. Therefore, BIP 9
and any miner signalling in general is not very useful for deploying these.
> - a fixed 95% threshold is not flexible enough to allow for a 'spectrum
> of contentiousness' to be represented
>
> - the 95% threshold allows small minorities to veto proposed changes,
> lead to stagnation (viz. current standoffs)
Softforks are not required to use BIP 9, and even if they do, they are not
required to use the recommended thresholds.
Basically, the problems you're trying to solve don't exist...
Luke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-04 18:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-03 9:06 Sancho Panza
2017-04-04 11:16 ` Tom Zander
2017-04-04 16:41 ` Sancho Panza
2017-04-04 16:49 ` Sancho Panza
2017-04-04 18:01 ` Luke Dashjr [this message]
2017-04-04 19:28 ` Sancho Panza
2017-04-05 10:08 ` Tom Zander
2017-04-05 14:09 ` Thomas Kerin
2017-04-08 21:58 ` Sancho Panza
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201704041801.51655.luke@dashjr.org \
--to=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=luke_bipeditor@dashjr$(echo .)org \
--cc=sanch0panza@protonmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox