rich1.0npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nhttps://nostr.ae/npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2017-05-12 📝 Original message:On Friday 12 May 2017 10:22:14 PM Peter Todd wrote: > 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. This BIP doesn't change that. Enforcement remains primarily by users. > 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". You assume users will pay for signalling of softforks prematurely. So long as it waits until deployment of the softfork is widespread, this risk is minimal. At worst, it creates risks similar to a UASF. So long as UASF is the alternative, this way seems strictly better. > 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. How so? On Friday 12 May 2017 10:17:30 PM ZmnSCPxj wrote: > Minor editorial nitpick, this paragraph is repeated, maybe one of these > should be Testnet? > > For Bitcoin '''mainnet''', the BIP8 '''starttime''' will be TBD (Epoch > timestamp TBD) and BIP8 '''timeout''' will be TBD (Epoch timestamp TBD). > > For Bitcoin '''mainnet''', the BIP8 '''starttime''' will be TBD (Epoch > timestamp TBD) and BIP8 '''timeout''' will be TBD (Epoch timestamp TBD). Fixed, thanks. Luke