{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1sgs97fe0n9wehe6zw7drcxdz4cy9yt9pfqjv8gasz5jlk4zezc0quppx3c","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1sgs97fe0n9wehe6zw7drcxdz4cy9yt9pfqjv8gasz5jlk4zezc0quppx3c","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-05-13\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA256\n\nIf people want to influence the decisions of miners, all they need to\ndo is mine.\n\nI do not see why any person would want to pay, and then trust, another\nto mine accordingly. Each person can mine and attain their level of\ninfluence. This not only avoids the side payment, but earns the person\nmoney.\n\nThere is nothing inherently wrong with paying people to run nodes or\nsignal \"readiness\", but there is no reason whatsoever to consider\nthese ideas beneficial from a personal/economic or\nsecurity/decentralization standpoint.\n\nIf you are not running a node you are not part of the economic\nconsensus. If you are not mining you have no say in transaction\nordering. The \"solution\" is both obvious and necessary to secure Bitcoin\n.\n\nIf a person does not want to bother then he/she clearly does not have\na strong opinion. As developers we should be focused on reducing the\ncomplexities of mining and of validation, not finding ways for people\nto avoid participating in these necessarily distributed roles.\n\ne\n\nOn 05/12/2017 05:49 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e On Friday 12 May 2017 10:22:14 PM Peter Todd wrote:\n\u003e\u003e nVersion signaling is already technically unenforceable, in the \n\u003e\u003e sense that we don't have good ways of ensuring miners actually \n\u003e\u003e adopt the rules they're claiming to signal. Equally, it's users \n\u003e\u003e who ultimately adopt rules, not miners, and attempting to pay \n\u003e\u003e miners to signal certain bits will further confuse this point.\n\u003e \n\u003e This BIP doesn't change that. Enforcement remains primarily by \n\u003e users.\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Quite likely the outcome of users trying to anonymously pay \n\u003e\u003e anonymous miners to signal certain bits will be the complete \n\u003e\u003e breakdown of the honesty of the nVersion signalling system, \n\u003e\u003e currently enforced only by \"gentlemans agreement\".\n\u003e \n\u003e You assume users will pay for signalling of softforks prematurely.\n\u003e  So long as it waits until deployment of the softfork is \n\u003e widespread, this risk is minimal. At worst, it creates risks \n\u003e similar to a UASF. So long as UASF is the alternative, this way \n\u003e seems strictly better.\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Also, as an aside, this \"specification\" again shows the \n\u003e\u003e inadequacy and unreadability of English language specifications.\n\u003e\u003e  I'd strongly suggest you delete it and instead mark the \n\u003e\u003e \"reference implementation\" as the specification.\n\u003e \n\u003e How so?\n\u003e \n\u003e On Friday 12 May 2017 10:17:30 PM ZmnSCPxj wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Minor editorial nitpick, this paragraph is repeated, maybe one of\n\u003e\u003e these should be Testnet?\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e For Bitcoin '''mainnet''', the BIP8 '''starttime''' will be TBD \n\u003e\u003e (Epoch timestamp TBD) and BIP8 '''timeout''' will be TBD (Epoch \n\u003e\u003e timestamp TBD).\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e For Bitcoin '''mainnet''', the BIP8 '''starttime''' will be TBD \n\u003e\u003e (Epoch timestamp TBD) and BIP8 '''timeout''' will be TBD (Epoch \n\u003e\u003e timestamp TBD).\n\u003e \n\u003e Fixed, thanks.\n\u003e \n\u003e Luke _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev \n\u003e mailing list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)\n\niQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZFnzNAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOlMsH/2Li7lDTr57EC2mSt4BuCf3Q\nQ1sx21CBumm6OQKMxd207wgXTaxVJVmrGPXfJ6ZW8Bf+2tMKgc/LsZfzXdEo5+Fx\niTkdgJeW8QbKiEGzOFKMxWXH9jyCnd0WcDnKw/v7WqUhYfy2c9wz9RzCMY5iJqph\nxd2+DeiEIjXIvE+l2TXGwjnB8Wp41QeY0I98kG3HHwNvNREbbGS/BjtLj5+eBygU\nm+6dxkJoEttms31F47WFoZRzN7u5pe3BY5kDfZdVkbG7MOomSYwlhMvR3PtA1wrz\nFeAUcHpp9MPj+qgHGwAGMfJiG/5WsVSrl/dJTm68zPOdwH60fMNNT/Srfbj1Ty8=\n=9Xik\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----"}