Hi AJ, > Under *any* other circumstance, when they're used to activate a bad soft fork, speedy trial and bip8 are the same. If a resistance method works against bip8, it works against speedy trial; if it fails against speedy trial, it fails against bip8.
IIRC one essential difference between ST (which is a variant of BIP9) and BIP8 is that since there is no mandatory signaling during the lockin period, you can't do a counter soft fork as easily. This is one of the points that Luke mentioned to me that made clear the benefits of the mandatory signaling. A variant of ST that does require mandatory signaling may actually be something that can improve the process and give users a more effective means of forking away from SF changes that they reject. Keagan On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 12:58 PM Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 2:14 PM Anthony Towns <a...@erisian.com.au> wrote: > >> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 12:13:08PM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote: >> > You're not even considering user resistance in your cases. >> >> Of course I am. Again: >> > > No, you're relying on miners to stop bad proposals. > > >> > > My claim is that for *any* bad (evil, flawed, whatever) softfork, then >> > > attempting activation via bip8 is *never* superior to speedy trial, >> > > and in some cases is worse. >> > > >> > > If I'm missing something, you only need to work through a single >> example >> > > to demonstrate I'm wrong, which seems like it ought to be easy... But >> > > just saying "I disagree" and "I don't want to talk about that" isn't >> > > going to convince anyone. >> >> The "some cases" where bip8 with lot=true is *worse* than speedy trial >> is when miners correctly see that a bad fork is bad. >> >> Under *any* other circumstance, when they're used to activate a bad soft >> fork, speedy trial and bip8 are the same. If a resistance method works >> against bip8, it works against speedy trial; if it fails against speedy >> trial, it fails against bip8. >> > > You're wrong. > > >> > Sorry for the aggressive tone, but I when people ignore some of my >> points >> > repeteadly, I start to wonder if they do it on purpose. >> >> Perhaps examine the beam in your own eye. >> > > Yeah, whether you do that yourself or not: sorry, it's over. > > >> Cheers, >> aj >> > _______________________________________________ > 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
