Re: [bitcoin-dev] Moving towards user activated soft fork activation

Thank you all for the insightful feedback, on list, in private and on various social media platforms. I have extended the generalized proposal which extends BIP9. This basically introduces an extra workflow state if activationtime > starttime and < timeout - 1 month. It allows extra business

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Moving towards user activated soft fork activation

I fail to see how any non-mining user can attack a miner. The worst they can do is refuse to buy their coinbase transaction. Do you believe that users are obligated to buy coins from miners? If not, then all miners are voluntarily choosing a set of rules to enforce and a set of policy to mine.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Moving towards user activated soft fork activation

On 03/06/2017 05:07 PM, Edmund Edgar via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On 7 March 2017 at 08:23, Gareth Williams wrote: >> What you're describing is a hashpower activated soft fork to censor transactions, in response to a user activated soft fork that the majority of hashpower disagrees

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Moving towards user activated soft fork activation

On 7 March 2017 at 08:23, Gareth Williams wrote: > What you're describing is a hashpower activated soft fork to censor > transactions, in response to a user activated soft fork that the majority of > hashpower disagrees with. Well, they'd be censoring transactions to prevent

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Moving towards user activated soft fork activation

What you're describing is a hashpower activated soft fork to censor transactions, in response to a user activated soft fork that the majority of hashpower disagrees with. It is always possible for a majority of hashpower to censor transactions they disagree with. Users may view that as an

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Moving towards user activated soft fork activation

On 6 March 2017 at 18:18, David Vorick via bitcoin-dev wrote: > User activated soft forks, or perhaps more accurately called 'economically > forced soft forks' are a tool to use if the miners are in clear opposition > to the broader economy. I don't think

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Moving towards user activated soft fork activation

On Mar 5, 2017 6:48 PM, "Eric Voskuil" wrote: Independent of one's opinion on the merits of one fork or another, the state of centralization in Bitcoin is an area of great concern. If "we" can sit down with 75% of the economy and/or 90% of the hash power (which of course has

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Moving towards user activated soft fork activation

There are two aspects of system security in Bitcoin, mining (hash power) and payment validation (economy). The security of each is a function of its level of decentralization. Another way to think of it is that a system with less decentralization has a smaller community (consensus). A large

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Moving towards user activated soft fork activation

I think UASF is a great idea for the reasons mentioned before that it more closely matches the balance of powers in bitcoin, and that its much more opt-in. Many people are comparing an UASF fork with a hard fork. I disagree with this view and I think there is a difference between the two kinds of

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Moving towards user activated soft fork activation

Without at least a majority hashrate validating blocks, it is possible just a single invalid block could split the chain such that the majority continue building a most-work on that invalid block. This failure to validate a softfork is similar in some respects to a hardfork, but with one

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Moving towards user activated soft fork activation

On Feb 27, 2017, at 8:02 AM, shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> 3) In terms of complexity for mining pool operators, how well does this >> model scale if there are N soft forks and the pool doesn't want to opt-in to >> any of them? Couldn't this result

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Moving towards user activated soft fork activation

Dear Jameson, Thank you for your questions. Answers inline below: Jameson Lopp via bitcoin-dev wrote: You've made many salient points, Shaolin, though I have a few questions: 1) How well does this model work under adversarial conditions? Fair point

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Moving towards user activated soft fork activation

You've made many salient points, Shaolin, though I have a few questions: 1) How well does this model work under adversarial conditions? Fair point about signaling not being reliable, though it seems more vague in terms of safety given that you can't actually know what percentage of hashrate that

[bitcoin-dev] Moving towards user activated soft fork activation

Some thoughts about the activation mechanism for soft forks. In the past we used IsSuperMajority and currently use BIP9 as soft fork activation methods, where a supermajority of hashrate triggers nodes to begin enforcing new rules. Hashrate based activation is convenient because it is the