From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org,
Ryan Grant <bitcoin-dev@rgrant•org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making the case for flag day activation of taproot
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2021 18:17:40 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202103051817.40615.luke@dashjr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMnpzfrTkP=9JXHg2+1Xz03q34w-YoB_Nff5trw9OyqOSqB_0A@mail.gmail.com>
On Friday 05 March 2021 14:51:12 Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 7:32 PM Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev
>
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > So that leads me to believe here that the folks who oppose LOT=true
> > primarily have an issue with forced signaling, which personally I
> > don't care about as much, not the idea of committing to a UASF from
> > the get go.
>
> The biggest disconnect is between two goals: modern soft-fork
> activation's "Don't (needlessly) lose hashpower to un-upgraded
> miners"; and UASF's must-signal strategy to prevent inaction.
>
>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-January/017547
>.html
>
> This question dives to the heart of Bitcoin's far-out future.
> Of two important principles, which principle is more important:
>
> - to allow everyone (even miners) to operate on the contract they
> accepted when entering the system; or
There was never any such a contract. Even full nodes must upgrade in a
softfork, or they lose their security and become comparable to light wallets.
> - to protect against protocol sclerosis for the project as a whole?
What?
> Do miners have a higher obligation to evaluate upgrades than economic
> nodes implementing cold storage and infrequent spends? If they do,
> then so far it has been implicit. LOT=true would make that obligation
> explicit.
Miners either make valid blocks or they don't.
The only thing they "need" to evaluate is the market for their work.
Luke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-05 18:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-03 14:39 Chris Belcher
2021-03-03 16:19 ` Vincent Truong
2021-03-04 23:45 ` Eric Voskuil
2021-03-03 17:30 ` yanmaani
2021-03-03 20:48 ` Chris Belcher
2021-03-03 21:39 ` yanmaani
2021-03-03 19:08 ` Russell O'Connor
2021-03-03 22:14 ` Matt Corallo
2021-03-04 13:47 ` Russell O'Connor
2021-03-04 18:23 ` Keagan McClelland
2021-03-05 14:51 ` Ryan Grant
2021-03-05 18:17 ` Luke Dashjr [this message]
2021-03-06 17:57 ` Matt Corallo
2021-03-29 9:17 ` Anthony Towns
[not found] <mailman.66954.1614808879.32591.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
2021-03-03 22:12 ` Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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=202103051817.40615.luke@dashjr.org \
--to=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@rgrant$(echo .)org \
/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