tl;dr How about 80% ?

The fallback to BIP-8 makes sense, but it's not a graceful one and we 
absolutely prefer BIP-9 to succeed. A failure to reach 95% readiness signalling 
means 2.5 years delay, 3.5 years in total, not yet counting.

95% can prove difficult to achieve. Some % of negligent miners that forget to 
upgrade is expected. Completing that to 5% is not too difficult for a small 
malicious minority trying to delay the activation. This is the issue Matt's 
goal #5 aims to prevent, and while the fallback to BIP-8 helps, BIP-9’s 95% 
requirement makes it worse by allowing quite a neglected minority to force a 
dramatic delay. Also note how in such case it would have been better to skip 
BIP-9 altogether and maybe save 1.5 years.

Matt mentions the 95% requirement under goal #3 "Don't (needlessly) lose 
hashpower to un-upgraded miners". If that is the trade-off, I'd say 2.5 years 
delay is worse than a momentary loss of hashrate. The protocol is quiet 
resilient to hashrate fluctuations and, as others mentioned, at that point 
miners don’t just signal, but lose coins if they don't upgrade, so the 
hashpower loss is expected to shortly correct. This also means goal #4 is not 
really effected.

On Sat Jan 11 14:42:07 UTC 2020, Anthony Towns wrote:

> For me, the focus there is on Matt's first point: "avoid activating [or 
> merging, or even proposing] in the face of significant, reasonable, and 
> directed objection"

I agree, and believe the outreach and review process around taproot are maybe 
the best we had so far. Notably goal #1 should be mostly satisfied already at 
merge time, so risking 3.5 years delay after that, seems excessive.

BIP-91 “Reduced threshold Segwit MASF” was deployed by miners specifically to 
reduce the 95% requirement down to 80% during the segwit drama. While hopefully 
taproot won’t produce any such excitements, the events around segwit activation 
and the weird “hash wars” meme that later followed – might encourage some to 
try similar games again.

The difference between `5% minus apathetic-miners` and `20% minus 
apathetic-miners` is dramatic and can make such attempts an order of magnitude 
more difficult.

The taproot process is looking great so far, I feel it will be a mistake to put 
it on a route that can easily extend to so many years. I suggest keeping Matt’s 
proposal as is but decrease BIP-9’s 95% threshold down to around 80%.

Yosef
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Reply via email to