> While reverting Segwit wouldn't be possible, it IS entirely possible to do an 
> additional softfork to either weigh witness data at the full 4 WU/Byte rate 
> (same as other data), or to reduce the total weight limit so as to extend the 
> witness discount to non-segwit transactions (so scriptSig is similarly 
> discounted).

What if I pre signed a transaction which was valid under the discounted weighting, but the increase in weight would make it invalid? This would serve to confiscate funds. Let's not do that.



> Furthermore, the variant of Speedy Trial being used (AFAIK) is the BIP9 
> variant which has no purpose other than to try to sabotage parallel UASF 
> efforts.

Why didn't you upstream the code that was used for the actual activation into Bitcoin Core in the last year?

In preparing it I just used what was available in Core now, surely the last year you could have gotten the appropriate patches done?


--
@JeremyRubin

On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:57 AM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Thursday 21 April 2022 03:10:02 alicexbt wrote:
> @DavidHarding
>
> Interesting proposal to revert consensus changes. Is it possible to do this
> for soft forks that are already activated?

Generally, no. Reverting a softfork without a built-in expiry would be a
hardfork.

> Example: Some users are not okay with witness discount in segwit
> transactions
>
> https://nitter.net/giacomozucco/status/1513614380121927682

While reverting Segwit wouldn't be possible, it IS entirely possible to do an
additional softfork to either weigh witness data at the full 4 WU/Byte rate
(same as other data), or to reduce the total weight limit so as to extend the
witness discount to non-segwit transactions (so scriptSig is similarly
discounted).

> @LukeDashjr
>
> > The bigger issue with CTV is the miner-decision route. Either CTV has
> > community support, or it doesn't. If it does, miners shouldn't have the
> > ability to veto it. If it doesn't, miners shouldn't have the ability to
> > activate it (making it a 51% attack more than a softfork).
>
> Agree. UASF client compatible with this speedy trial release for BIP 119
> could be a better way to activate CTV. Users can decide if they prefer
> mining pools to make the decision for them or they want to enforce it
> irrespective of how many mining pools signal for it. I haven't seen any
> arguments against CTV from mining pools yet.

We had that for Taproot, and now certain people are trying to say Speedy Trial
activated Taproot rather than the BIP8 client, and otherwise creating
confusion and ambiguity.

Furthermore, the variant of Speedy Trial being used (AFAIK) is the BIP9
variant which has no purpose other than to try to sabotage parallel UASF
efforts.

At this point, it is probably better for any Speedy Trial attempts to be
rejected by the community and fail outright. Perhaps even preparing a real
counter-softfork to invalidate blocks signalling for it.

Luke
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev