From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo•com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>, bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Modern Soft Fork Activation
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 19:22:47 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e77c5ee7-bb47-477b-2458-778d4b5c2231@mattcorallo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202001102337.53397.luke@dashjr.org>
Good thing no one is proposing a naive BIP 9 approach :). I'll note that
BIP 9 has been fairly robust (spy-mining issues notwithstanding, which
we believe are at least largely solved in the wild) in terms of safety,
though I noted extensively in the first mail that it failed in terms of
misunderstanding the activation parameters. I think the above proposal
largely solves that, and I don't see much in the way of arguing that
point from you, here.
As an aside, BIP 9 is also the Devil We Know, which carries a lot of
value, since we've found (and addressed) direct issues with it, whereas
all other activation methods we have ~0 experience with in the modern
Bitcoin network.
On 1/10/20 11:37 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> I think BIP 9 is a proven failure, and flag day softforks have their own
> problems:
>
> A) There is no way to unambiguously say "the rules for this chain are
> <x,y,z>". It leaves the chain in a kind of "quantum state" where the rules
> could be one thing, or could be another. Until the new rules are violated, we
> do not know if the softfork was a success or not. Because of this, people
> will rightly shy away from relying on the new rules. This problem is made
> worse by the fact that common node policies might not produce blocks which
> violate the rules. If we had gone with BIP149 for Segwit, it is IMO probable
> we would still not have a clear answer today to "Is Segwit active or not?"
>
> B) Because of (A), there is also no clear way to intentionally reject the
> softfork. Those who do not consent to it are effectively compelled to accept
> it anyway. While it is usually possible to craft an opposing softfork, this
> should IMO be well-defined and simple to do (including a plan to do so in any
> BIP9-alike spec).
>
> For these reasons, in 2017, I proposed revising BIP 8 with a mandatory signal,
> similar to how BIP148 worked: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/550
> However, the author of BIP 8 has since vanished, and because we had no
> immediate softfork plans, efforts to move this forward were abandoned
> temporarily. It seems like a good time to resume this work.
>
> In regard to your goal #3, I would like to note that after the mandatory
> signal period, old miners could resume mining unchanged. This means there is
> a temporary loss of hashrate to the network, but I think it is overall better
> than the alternatives. The temporary loss of income from invalid blocks will
> also give affected miners a last push to upgrade, hopefully improving the
> long run security of the network hashrate.
>
> Luke
>
> (P.S. As for your #1, I do think it is oversimplified in some cases, but we
> should leave that for later discussion when it actually becomes relevant.)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-14 19:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-10 21:30 Matt Corallo
2020-01-10 22:21 ` Jorge Timón
2020-01-10 22:43 ` Matt Corallo
2020-01-10 23:07 ` Jorge Timón
2020-01-10 23:37 ` Luke Dashjr
2020-01-11 0:54 ` Jeremy
2020-01-14 19:22 ` Matt Corallo [this message]
2020-01-11 14:42 ` Anthony Towns
2020-01-12 5:58 ` Luke Dashjr
2020-01-14 19:42 ` Matt Corallo
2020-01-16 3:46 ` Anthony Towns
2020-01-13 8:34 Yosef
2020-01-14 3:20 ` Anthony Towns
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=e77c5ee7-bb47-477b-2458-778d4b5c2231@mattcorallo.com \
--to=lf-lists@mattcorallo$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=luke@dashjr$(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