{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-05-12\n📝 Original message:On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 07:22:56PM +0000, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e I've written a new BIP draft for OP_CHECKBLOCKVERSION to allow the community \n\u003e to put economic pressure on miners to deploy softforks without the extreme of \n\u003e a UASF.\n\u003e \n\u003e     https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-cbv/bip-cbv.mediawiki\n\nI strongly disagree with this proposal.\n\nnVersion signaling is already technically unenforceable, in the sense that we\ndon't have good ways of ensuring miners actually adopt the rules they're\nclaiming to signal. Equally, it's users who ultimately adopt rules, not miners,\nand attempting to pay miners to signal certain bits will further confuse this\npoint.\n\nQuite likely the outcome of users trying to anonymously pay anonymous miners to\nsignal certain bits will be the complete breakdown of the honesty of the\nnVersion signalling system, currently enforced only by \"gentlemans agreement\".\n\nA more productive direction would be a direct coin-owner signalling process,\nwith users taking action based on what provable coin-ownership has signalled.\n\n\nAlso, as an aside, this \"specification\" again shows the inadequacy and\nunreadability of English language specifications. I'd strongly suggest you\ndelete it and instead mark the \"reference implementation\" as the specification.\n\n-- \nhttps://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 455 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170512/ff3215fe/attachment.sig\u003e"}