rich1.0npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2017-05-12 📝 Original message:On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 07:22:56PM +0000, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I've written a new BIP draft for OP_CHECKBLOCKVERSION to allow the community > to put economic pressure on miners to deploy softforks without the extreme of > a UASF. > > https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-cbv/bip-cbv.mediawiki I strongly disagree with this proposal. nVersion signaling is already technically unenforceable, in the sense that we don't have good ways of ensuring miners actually adopt the rules they're claiming to signal. Equally, it's users who ultimately adopt rules, not miners, and attempting to pay miners to signal certain bits will further confuse this point. Quite likely the outcome of users trying to anonymously pay anonymous miners to signal certain bits will be the complete breakdown of the honesty of the nVersion signalling system, currently enforced only by "gentlemans agreement". A more productive direction would be a direct coin-owner signalling process, with users taking action based on what provable coin-ownership has signalled. Also, as an aside, this "specification" again shows the inadequacy and unreadability of English language specifications. I'd strongly suggest you delete it and instead mark the "reference implementation" as the specification. -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170512/ff3215fe/attachment.sig>