Re: [bitcoin-dev] Towards a means of measuring user support for Soft Forks

> if you are perfectly rational, you can certainly imagine a "what if" where your goal is different from your current goal and figure out what you would do ***if*** that were your goal instead. I see what you're saying, and I'm a lot more on board with that. I still think "rational" can't mean "p

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Towards a means of measuring user support for Soft Forks

Good morning Billy, > @Zman > > if two people are perfectly rational and start from the same information, > > they *will* agree > I take issue with this. I view the word "rational" to mean basically logical. > Someone is rational if they advocate for things that are best for them. Two > humans

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Towards a means of measuring user support for Soft Forks

@Zman > if two people are perfectly rational and start from the same information, they *will* agree I take issue with this. I view the word "rational" to mean basically logical. Someone is rational if they advocate for things that are best for them. Two humans are not the same people. They have di

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Towards a means of measuring user support for Soft Forks

@Keagan > we have to have a way (formalized or not) of deciding when the "lesser experts" in aggregate have better judgement. I agree. Its certainly convenient for development speed to limit the number of cooks in the kitchen. But for the largest cryptocurrency in the world, we're going to have to

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Towards a means of measuring user support for Soft Forks

Hi Keagan, The worst case scenario is: no new proposals are accepted and the Bitcoin remains the same. This is not so bad. I think a bad actor will usually want to *add* (or remove) something that breaks. I don't know if the boycott of new proposals is as effective in breaking Bitcoin. It means th

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Towards a means of measuring user support for Soft Forks

@Felipe > the consensus should follow the current line: discussions and tests carried out by experts. We all know that the most important devs have the most weight in discussions. And that's how it should be We have up til this point been miraculously lucky that the vast majority of prominent bi

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Towards a means of measuring user support for Soft Forks

Back in the 2017 block size wars I brought up the idea [0] of using time-locked-weighted voting as a mechanism to gauge community/hodler sentiment (lived on testnet for awhile at https://hodl.voting [1]). Basically, the user locks up some bitcoins with an OP_CSV while committing to some statement

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Towards a means of measuring user support for Soft Forks

Good morning Keagan, et al, > I think there are a few questions surrounding the issue of soft fork > activation. Perhaps it warrants zooming out beyond even what my proposal aims > to solve. In my mind the most important questions surrounding this process > are: > > 1. In an ideal world, assu

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Towards a means of measuring user support for Soft Forks

> > > > Have you taken a look at my proposal > ? > The proposal is, to be clear, *not* "voting" but rather polling that isn't > programmatically connected to activation. The intention is for people > (developers) to loo

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Towards a means of measuring user support for Soft Forks

Felipe, > For me, the consensus should follow the current line: discussions and tests carried out by experts. We all know that the most important devs have the most weight in discussions. And that's how it should be, because they understand far better than any other lowly mortal. Consensus simply

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Towards a means of measuring user support for Soft Forks

Generally speaking, I'm not too fond of these mechanisms, for reasons others have expounded upon, but I will point out the following: Taproot means that top-level keys can be used in a ring signature scheme to collect coin votes from, e.g., all individual coins above a certain value at a certain t

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Towards a means of measuring user support for Soft Forks

The idea seems interesting at first glance, but soon we see several problems. The biggest problem with votes of this type is that they can be easily manipulated. Imagine a powerful attacker who impersonates someone in good faith and arrives with a proposal that looks great but has dark ends behind

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Towards a means of measuring user support for Soft Forks

@Erik > Miners can block votes from the chain This would seem to not realistically ever happen in Keagan's proposal, since miners can only include transactions that signal the same way they're signaling. So yes, they could block those transactions, but it would be very much against their interest

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Towards a means of measuring user support for Soft Forks

We had a UTXO proof-of-stake website at some point during the blocksize wars. A few people signed with a few thousand bitcoins, but it was clear that most were not participating. I don't have a link. Another old discussion link: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-June

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Towards a means of measuring user support for Soft Forks

There are many challenges with on-chain voting, here are a few: - We may not want votes on-chain, because it creates miner incentives for contentious BIP's to drive up fees - Miners can block votes from the chain - Cold storage votes are probably the most important for certain proposals (like vaul

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Towards a means of measuring user support for Soft Forks

>> we should not let the wealthy make consensus decisions. >We shouldn't let the wealthy continue to control our governments. However, bitcoin is not a government. Its a financial network. >The fact of the matter is that fundamentally, the economic majority controls where the chain goes. Its very

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Towards a means of measuring user support for Soft Forks

> A transaction signaling in the affirmative MUST NOT be included in a block that does not signal in the affirmative I feel like I've heard this idea somewhere before. Its an interesting idea. It should be noted that there is a consequence of this: holders wouldn't have much say. People that tr

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Towards a means of measuring user support for Soft Forks

You may be interested in these posts on transaction signalling: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/014193.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/014202.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014251.html

[bitcoin-dev] Towards a means of measuring user support for Soft Forks

Hi all, Alongside the debate with CTV right now there's a second debate that was not fully hashed out in the activation of Taproot. There is a lot of argument around what Speedy Trial is or isn't, what BIP8 T/F is or isn't etc. A significant reason for the breakdown in civility around this debate