{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1ss2s89s938xfh3zzz0j2mhp25tlrlcrj0duljr0ne0t8v2r4cv0q5e0am4","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1ss2s89s938xfh3zzz0j2mhp25tlrlcrj0duljr0ne0t8v2r4cv0q5e0am4","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-05-22\n📝 Original message:I also do not support the BIP 148 UASF, and I'd like to add to the points\nthat Greg has already raised in this thread.\n\nBIP 148 would introduce a new consensus rule that softforks out non-segwit\nsignalling blocks in some time period.  I reject this consensus rule as\nboth arbitrary and needlessly disruptive.  Bitcoin's primary purpose is to\nreach consensus on the state of a shared ledger, and even though I think\nthe Bitcoin network ought to adopt segwit, I don't think that concern\ntrumps the goal of not splitting the network.\n\nMany BIP 148 advocates seem to start with the assumption that segwit\nalready has a lot of support, and suggest that BIP 148 does as well.\nHowever I don't think it's fair or correct to separate the activation\nproposal for segwit from the rest of the segwit proposal.  The deployment\nparameters for segwit are consensus-critical; assuming that some other\ndeployment has consensus because it would result in the rest of the segwit\nproposal activating is an unjustified leap.\n\nEven if there were no feasible alternate segwit deployment method available\nto us, I would hesitate to recommend that the network adopt a potentially\nconsensus-splitting approach, even though I firmly believe that the ideas\nbehind segwit are fundamentally good ones.  But fortunately that is not the\nsituation we are in; we have substantially less disruptive methods\navailable to us to activate it, even if the current BIP 9 deployment were\nto fail -- such as another BIP 9 deployment in the future, or perhaps a BIP\n149 deployment.\n\nIf we do pursue a \"user-activated\" deployment of segwit, I'd recommend that\nwe do so in a more careful way than BIP 148 or 149 currently suggest, which\nas I understand would otherwise make very few changes to the current\nimplementation.  However, due to the BIP 9 activation assumption, the\nBitcoin Core 0.13.1 - 0.14.0 segwit implementation largely lumps together\nthe idea that miners would both enforce the rules and mine segwit blocks.\nHowever, we can separate these concerns, as we started to do in the Bitcoin\nCore 0.14.1 release, where mining segwit blocks is not required in order to\ngenerally mine or signal for segwit in the software.  And we can go further\nstill: without too much work, we could make further improvements to\naccommodate miners who, for whatever reason, don't want to upgrade their\nsystems, such as by improving block relay from pre-segwit peers [1], or\noptimizing transaction selection for miners who are willing to enforce the\nsegwit rules but haven't upgraded their systems to mine segwit blocks [2].\n\nIf we would seek to activate a soft-fork with less clear miner signaling\n(such as BIP 149), then I think such improvements are warranted to minimize\nnetwork disruption.  In general, we should not seek to censor hashpower on\nthe network unless we have a very important reason for doing so.  While the\nissues here are nuanced, if I were to evaluate the BIP 148 soft-fork\nproposal on the spectrum of \"censorship attack on Bitcoin\" to \"benign\nprotocol upgrade\", BIP 148 strikes me as closer to the former than the\nlatter.  There is simply no need here to orphan these non-signalling blocks\nthat could otherwise be used to secure the network.\n\nTo go further: I think BIP 148 is ill-conceived even for achieving its own\npresumed goals -- the motivation for adding a consensus rule that applies\nto the version bits on blocks is surely for the effect such bits have on\nolder software, such as Bitcoin Core releases 0.13.1 and later.  Yet in\ntrying to bring those implementations along as segwit-enforcing software,\nBIP 148 would risk forking from such clients in the short term!  If one\nreally cared about maintaining consensus with older, segwit-enabled\nsoftware, it would make far more sense to seek segwit activation in a way\nthat didn't fork from them (such as BIP 149, or a new BIP 9 deployment\nafter this one times out).  And if one doesn't care about such consensus,\nthen it'd be far simpler to just set (e.g.) August 1 as the flag day\nactivation of segwit, and not play these contortionist games with block\nversion bits, which carry no useful or intrinsic meaning.  Either of these\ntwo approaches should have the advantage of reduced fork risk, compared\nwith BIP 148.\n\nOf course, everyone is free to run the software of their choosing.  I write\nthis to both generally convey my opposition to a careless proposal, which I\nbelieve represents a way of thinking that is detrimental to Bitcoin's long\nrun success, and specifically explain why I oppose inclusion of this\nproposal in the Bitcoin Core implementation [3].  The Bitcoin Core project\nhasn't been, and shouldn't be, careless in deploying consensus changes.\nInstead, I think the Bitcoin Core project ought to stand up for the best\npractices that our community has learned about how to deploy such changes\n(specifically for minimizing chain-split risk when deploying a soft fork!),\nand I think we should all avoid adoption or encouragement of practices that\nwould depart from the high standards we are capable of achieving.\n\n\n [1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017\n-March/013811.html\n [2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9955\n [3] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10428#issuecomment-303098925\n\n\n--Suhas Daftuar\n\n\nOn Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e I do not support the BIP148 UASF for some of the same reasons that I\n\u003e do support segwit:  Bitcoin is valuable in part because it has high\n\u003e security and stability, segwit was carefully designed to support and\n\u003e amplify that engineering integrity that people can count on now and\n\u003e into the future.\n\u003e\n\u003e I do not feel the the approach proposed in BIP148 really measures up\n\u003e to the standard set by segwit itself, or the existing best practices\n\u003e in protocol development in this community.\n\u003e\n\u003e The primary flaw in BIP148 is that by forcing the activation of the\n\u003e existing (non-UASF segwit) nodes it almost guarantees at a minor level\n\u003e of disruption.\n\u003e\n\u003e Segwit was carefully engineered so that older unmodified miners could\n\u003e continue operating _completely_ without interruption after segwit\n\u003e activates.\n\u003e\n\u003e Older nodes will not include segwit spends, and so their blocks will\n\u003e not be invalid even if they do not have segwit support. They can\n\u003e upgrade to it on their own schedule. The only risk non-participating\n\u003e miners take after segwit activation is that if someone else mines an\n\u003e invalid block they would extend it, a risk many miners already\n\u003e frequently take with spy-mining.\n\u003e\n\u003e I do not think it is a horrible proposal: it is better engineered than\n\u003e many things that many altcoins do, but just not up to our normal\n\u003e standards. I respect the motivations of the authors of BIP 148.  If\n\u003e your goal is the fastest possible segwit activation then it is very\n\u003e useful to exploit the \u003e80% of existing nodes that already support the\n\u003e original version of segwit.\n\u003e\n\u003e But the fastest support should not be our goal, as a community-- there\n\u003e is always some reckless altcoin or centralized system that can support\n\u003e something faster than we can-- trying to match that would only erode\n\u003e our distinguishing value in being well engineered and stable.\n\u003e\n\u003e \"First do no harm.\" We should use the least disruptive mechanisms\n\u003e available, and the BIP148 proposal does not meet that test.  To hear\n\u003e some people-- non-developers on reddit and such-- a few even see the\n\u003e forced orphaning of 148 as a virtue, that it's punitive for\n\u003e misbehaving miners. I could not not disagree with that perspective any\n\u003e more strongly.\n\u003e\n\u003e Of course, I do not oppose the general concept of a UASF but\n\u003e _generally_ a soft-fork (of any kind) does not need to risk disruption\n\u003e of mining, just as segwit's activation does not.  UASF are the\n\u003e original kind of soft-fork and were the only kind of fork practiced by\n\u003e Satoshi. P2SH was activated based on a date, and all prior ones were\n\u003e based on times or heights.  We introduced miner based activation as\n\u003e part of a process of making Bitcoin more stable in the common case\n\u003e where the ecosystem is all in harmony.  It's kind of weird to see UASF\n\u003e portrayed as something new.\n\u003e\n\u003e It's important the users not be at the mercy of any one part of the\n\u003e ecosystem to the extent that we can avoid it-- be it developers,\n\u003e exchanges, chat forums, or mining hardware makers.  Ultimately the\n\u003e rules of Bitcoin work because they're enforced by the users\n\u003e collectively-- that is what makes Bitcoin Bitcoin, it's what makes it\n\u003e something people can count on: the rules aren't easy to just change.\n\u003e\n\u003e There have been some other UASF proposals that avoid the forced\n\u003e disruption-- by just defining a new witness bit and allowing\n\u003e non-upgraded-to-uasf miners and nodes to continue as non-upgraded, I\n\u003e think they are vastly superior. They would be slower to deploy, but I\n\u003e do not think that is a flaw.\n\u003e\n\u003e We should have patience. Bitcoin is a system that should last for all\n\u003e ages and power mankind for a long time-- ten years from now a couple\n\u003e years of dispute will seem like nothing. But the reputation we earn\n\u003e for stability and integrity, for being a system of money people can\n\u003e count on will mean everything.\n\u003e\n\u003e If these discussions come up, they'll come up in the form of reminding\n\u003e people that Bitcoin isn't easily changed at a whim, even when the\n\u003e whims are obviously good, and how that protects it from being managed\n\u003e like all the competing systems of money that the world used to use\n\u003e were managed. :)\n\u003e\n\u003e So have patience, don't take short cuts.  Segwit is a good improvement\n\u003e and we should respect it by knowing that it's good enough to wait for,\n\u003e and for however its activated to be done the best way we know how.\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170522/8cfe10a6/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}