On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 5:32 PM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > I think involving users more in activation is a good avenue of thought for > improving how bitcoin does soft forks. I also think the idea you brought up > of some way for people to signal opposition is a good idea. I've suggested a > mechanism for signature-based user polling, I've also suggested a mechanism > where miners can actively signal for opposing a soft fork. It seems like > there should be some common ground between us in those ideas. Where it seems > we may perhaps unreconcilably disagree are that A. miners are users too and > generally have interests that are important and different than most users, > and giving them at least some mechanism to force discussion is appropriate, > and B. chain splits are no joke and should almost never be possible > accidentally and therefore we should make a significant effort to avoid them, > which almost definitely means orderly coordination of miners.
Any user polling system is going to be vulnerable to sybil attacks. > Do you have anything concrete you want to propose? An example mechanism? Are > you simply here advocating your support for BIP8+LOT=true? Yes, I want BIP+LOT=true (aka the original bip8). I also want users to be easily able to coordinate resistance to any given change, as I described in this thread and others and luke has done many times. I also generally oppose to speedy trial being used for any consensus rule change deployment. Imagine someone comes and proposes a block size increase through extension block softfork. Would you like them to use speedy trial or BIP8+LOT=true for deployment? _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
