From: Gareth Williams <gjw@posteo•net>
To: Edmund Edgar <ed@realitykeys•com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Moving towards user activated soft fork activation
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 10:23:47 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <964E4801-234F-4E30-A040-2C63274D27F2@posteo.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+su7OV0Cpe=4AKdNhJXOCbYVriEN1vHSoA_0r31GXCAP1=NCA@mail.gmail.com>
What you're describing is a hashpower activated soft fork to censor transactions, in response to a user activated soft fork that the majority of hashpower disagrees with.
It is always possible for a majority of hashpower to censor transactions they disagree with. Users may view that as an attack, and can always respond with a POW hard fork.
Bitcoin only works if the majority of hashpower is not hostile to the users.
On 6 March 2017 9:29:35 PM AEDT, Edmund Edgar via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>On 6 March 2017 at 18:18, David Vorick via bitcoin-dev
><bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> User activated soft forks, or perhaps more accurately called
>'economically
>> forced soft forks' are a tool to use if the miners are in clear
>opposition
>> to the broader economy.
>
>I don't think they work for that, at least not for new features,
>because miners will presumably just head the whole thing off by
>orphaning the whole class of non-standard transactions that are the
>subject of the fork. In the SegWit case, they'd just orphan anything
>that looks like a SegWit transaction, valid or not. That way they
>don't need to worry about ending up on the wrong side of the upgrade,
>because no transaction affected by the proposed rule change will ever
>get into the longest chain. Rational node operators (particularly
>exchanges) will likely also adopt their stricter rule change, since
>they know any chain that breaks it will end up being orphaned, so you
>don't want to act on a payment that you see confirmed in it. So then
>you're back where you started, except that your soft-fork is now a
>de-facto hard-fork, because you have to undo the new, stricter rule
>that the miners introduced to head off your shenannigans.
>
>Where they're interesting is where you can do something meaningful by
>forcing some transactions through on a once-off basis. For example, if
>the Chinese government identified an address belonging to Uighur
>separatists and leaned on Chinese miners to prevent anything from that
>address confirming, it might be interesting for users to say, "If
>these utxos are not spent by block X, your block is invalid".
>
>They might also be interesting for feature upgrades in a world where
>mining is radically decentralized and upgrades are fighting against
>inertia rather than opposition, but sadly that's not the world we
>currently live in.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-06 23:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-05 14:33 Chris Belcher
2017-03-05 18:10 ` David Vorick
2017-03-05 18:48 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-03-05 21:31 ` Nick ODell
2017-03-06 9:18 ` David Vorick
2017-03-06 10:29 ` Edmund Edgar
2017-03-06 23:23 ` Gareth Williams [this message]
2017-03-07 1:07 ` Edmund Edgar
2017-03-07 17:37 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-03-07 9:17 ` Tom Zander
2017-03-07 18:13 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-03-07 19:13 ` Alphonse Pace
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-02-25 23:55 shaolinfry
2017-02-26 17:34 ` Jameson Lopp
2017-02-27 16:02 ` shaolinfry
2017-02-27 16:50 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-02-28 21:20 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-03-12 15:47 ` shaolinfry
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=964E4801-234F-4E30-A040-2C63274D27F2@posteo.net \
--to=gjw@posteo$(echo .)net \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=ed@realitykeys$(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