On Friday 11 March 2022 00:12:19 Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev wrote: > The "no-miner-veto" concerns are, to an extent, addressed by the short > timeline of Speedy Trial. No more waiting 2 years on the miners dragging > their feet.
It's still a miner veto. The only way this works is if the full deployment (with UASF fallback) is released in parallel. > If you are so concerned about listening to legitimate criticism, maybe you > can design a new deployment mechanism that addresses the concerns of the > "devs-do-not-decide" faction and the "no-divegent-consensus-rules" > faction. BIP8 already does that. > A major contender to the Speedy Trial design at the time was to mandate > eventual forced signalling, championed by luke-jr. It turns out that, at > the time of that proposal, a large amount of hash power simply did not have > the firmware required to support signalling. That activation proposal > never got broad consensus, BIP 8 did in fact have broad consensus before some devs decided to ignore the community and do their own thing. Why are you trying to rewrite history? > and rightly so, because in retrospect we see > that the design might have risked knocking a significant fraction of mining > power offline if it had been deployed. Imagine if the firmware couldn't be > quickly updated or imagine if the problem had been hardware related. They had 18 months to fix their broken firmware. That's plenty of time. Luke _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
