> Why do you care what they think? Why does it matter if they misunderstand?
I care about improving soft fork activation mechanism and shared one of the
advantages that helps avoid misleading things. It matters because they are
participants in this process.
> If the people aren't imaginary, then its their importance that's imaginary.
Neither the people nor their importance is imaginary. They are a part of
Bitcoin and as important as our opinion about soft forks on this mailing list.
> This isn't even sufficient evidence that they don't understand.
One example of an exchange: https://i.postimg.cc/zv4M6MSp/2KM5tcE.png
One example of a user:
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/97043/is-there-an-active-list-of-bips-currently-open-for-voting/
3 examples for each (user, mining pool and exchange) are enough to discuss a
problem or list advantages of BIP 8/LOT=TRUE. I can create an archive with more
if it helps during next soft fork.
> You haven't convinced me this is a significant problem. What are the concrete
> downsides? Why do you think this can't be fixed by simple persistent
> explaining?
I am not trying to convince you and we can have different opinions.
Downsides:
- Signaling period is a waste of time if mining pools that agreed on a soft
fork earlier do politics or influenced by councils such as BMC or governments
during signaling
- It is considered as voting not just by people outside Bitcoin but the
participants itself
- It gives miners an edge over economic nodes that enforce consensus rules
Simple persistent explaining has not helped in last few years. I don't see
anything wrong in listing this as one of the advantages for BIP8/LOT=TRUE.
pushd
---
parallel lines meet at infinity?
------- Original Message -------
On Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 10:01 AM, Billy Tetrud
<billy.tet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Many users, miners and exchanges still think its voting
>
> Why do you care what they think? Why does it matter if they misunderstand?
>
>> it is not an imaginary group of people
>
> If the people aren't imaginary, then its their importance that's imaginary.
>
>> One example of a mining pool
>
> This isn't even sufficient evidence that they don't understand. Its quite
> possible they're using the word "voting" loosely or that they don't
> understand english very well. And again, so what if they tweet things that
> are not correctly worded? This is not a reason to change how we design
> bitcoin soft forks.
>
> Its not even wrong to say that a particular signaling round is very much like
> voting. What's wrong is saying that bitcoin upgrades are made if and only if
> miners vote to approve those changes.
>
>> I see a problem that exists
>
> You haven't convinced me this is a significant problem. What are the concrete
> downsides? Why do you think this can't be fixed by simple persistent
> explaining? You can find groups of people who misunderstand basically any
> aspect of bitcoin. The solution to people misunderstanding the design is
> never to change how bitcoin is designed.
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 4:14 PM pushd <pu...@protonmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> No it does not. This narrative is the worst. A bad explanation of speedy
>>> trial can mislead people into thinking miner signalling is how Bitcoin
>>> upgrades are voted in. But a bad explanation can explain anything badly.
>>
>> I agree it is worst but why do you think this narrative exists? People have
>> tried explaining it. Many users, miners and exchanges still think its
>> voting. I think the problem is with activation method so BIP 8/LOT=TRUE is a
>> solution.
>>
>>> The solution is not to change how we engineer soft forks, it's to explain
>>> speedy trial better to this imaginary group of important people that think
>>> miner signaling is voting.
>>
>> We can suggest different solutions but the problem exists and it is not an
>> imaginary group of people.
>>
>> One example of a mining pool: https://archive.ph/oyH04
>>
>>> We shouldn't change how we engineer Bitcoin because of optics. I completely
>>> object to that point continuing to be used.
>>
>> Voting as described on wiki is quite similar to what happens during miners
>> signaling followed by activation if a certain threshold is reached. If some
>> participants in this process consider it voting instead of signaling for
>> readiness then listing advantages of a better activation method should help
>> everyone reading this thread/email.
>>
>> Sorry, I don't understand your objection. I see a problem that exists since
>> years and a better activation method fixes it. There are other positives for
>> using BIP 8/LOT=TRUE which I shared in
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-March/020178.html
>>
>> I will continue to discuss this problem with solutions until we use better
>> activation methods for future soft forks in any discussion about activation
>> methods.
>>
>> pushd
>> ---
>> parallel lines meet at infinity?
>>
>> ------- Original Message -------
>> On Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 1:40 AM, Billy Tetrud
>> <billy.tet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> @Pushd
>>>
>>>> Speedy trial makes it worse by misleading lot of bitcoin users including
>>>> miners to consider signaling as voting and majority votes decide if a soft
>>>> fork gets activated
>>>
>>> No it does not. This narrative is the worst. A bad explanation of speedy
>>> trial can mislead people into thinking miner signalling is how Bitcoin
>>> upgrades are voted in. But a bad explanation can explain anything badly.
>>> The solution is not to change how we engineer soft forks, it's to explain
>>> speedy trial better to this imaginary group of important people that think
>>> miner signaling is voting.
>>>
>>> We shouldn't change how we engineer Bitcoin because of optics. I completely
>>> object to that point continuing to be used.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022, 05:36 pushd via bitcoin-dev
>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Any case where a flawed proposal makes it through getting activation
>>>> parameters set and released, but doesn't achieve supermajority
>>>> hashpowersupport is made worse by bip8/lot=true in comparison to speedy
>>>> trial.
>>>>
>>>> - Flawed proposal making it through activation is a failure of review
>>>> process
>>>>
>>>> - Supermajority hashpower percentage decided by bitcoin core developers
>>>> can choose to not follow old or new consensus rules at any point
>>>>
>>>> - Speedy trial makes it worse by misleading lot of bitcoin users including
>>>> miners to consider signaling as voting and majority votes decide if a soft
>>>> fork gets activated
>>>>
>>>> - BIP 8/LOT=TRUE keeps things simple. Miners need to follow consensus
>>>> rules as they do right now if they wish to mine blocks for subsidy and
>>>> fees.
>>>>
>>>> Note: Mining pools or individual miners can participate in soft fork
>>>> discussions regardless of activation method and share their concern which
>>>> can be evaluated based on technical merits.
>>>>
>>>> pushd
>>>> ---
>>>> parallel lines meet at infinity?
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
