Eric, Luke Can I request that you don't discuss activation methods for future soft forks on a thread for CTV BIP review? I (and a number of others ) do not support an upcoming activation attempt of standalone OP_CTV. If you want to discuss activation methods for soft forks generally it would be much better if you set up a separate thread. OP_CTV is not the only current soft fork proposal and there will likely be more.
The activation discussion for Taproot was deliberately kept separate from the review of the Taproot BIPs and implementation. It only commenced once there was overwhelming community consensus for the soft fork to be activated (months after in fact). Though you are free to discuss whatever topics you wish (obviously) discussing soft fork activation methods on a OP_CTV thread might give the mistaken impression that OP_CTV is the next soft fork to be activated which is mere speculation at this point. In an ideal world the promoters of OP_CTV would follow the strong precedent set by the authors and contributors to the Taproot BIPs but regrettably that seems to have gone out the window at this point. Thanks Michael : https://gist.github.com/michaelfolkson/352a503f4f9fc5de89af528d86a1b718 -- Michael Folkson Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com Keybase: michaelfolkson PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 18th, 2022 at 11:00 PM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > -----Original Message----- > > From: Luke Dashjr l...@dashjr.org > > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 2:10 PM > > To: e...@voskuil.org > > Cc: 'Bitcoin Protocol Discussion' email@example.com > > Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review > > On Tuesday 18 January 2022 22:02:24 e...@voskuil.org wrote: > > > The only material distinction between BIP9 and BIP8 is that the latter > > > > may activate without signaled support of hash power enforcement. > > > > As unenforced soft forks are not "backward compatible" they produce a > > > > chain split. > > Enforcement of the Bitcoin consensus protocol is by users, not miners. Given that I stated "hash power enforcement" it is quite clear that this is in fact only produced by mining. You are misrepresenting my statement to make an emotional appeal. Without "hash power enforcement", a soft fork is NOT backward compatible. "[enforcement of] consensus protocol" is of course by merchants, but that is not the question at hand. The question is explicitly compatibility. Anyone can activate a soft fork at any time, but without "hash power enforcement" soft forks are NOT backward compatible. > Softforks never produce a chain split. Miners can, and might try to do it to cause disruption in retaliation, but the softfork itself does not. Maybe you are trying to split hairs given the fact that blocks are produced only by miners, so only miners can "cause" a split. But through not intention ("disruption in retaliation") whatsoever by mining, a soft fork will result in those activating the rule being split off the original chain unless majority hash power enforces the rule. The fact that doing nothing apart from deploying the rule will result in a split is the very definition of NOT compatible. I assume you will argue that the original chain is not "valid" and therefore irrelevant (as if no chain split occurred). But again the point is about compatibility. The appearance of multiple chains, which appear valid according to either the previous or new rules, is obviously the incompatibility. I shouldn't have to point this out, but observed chain splits have occurred in more the one large scale soft fork deployment. These splits have only been resolved through hash power enforcement. In 2010 it took 51 blocks before the current chain took the lead. In 2012 minority chains persisted for months. The deployment of soft forks caused these splits, NOT the actions of miners. And unless majority hash power eventually enforces it, the soft fork branch necessarily dies. > > It was for this reason alone that BIP8 never gained sufficient > > > > support. > > BIP 8 in fact achieved consensus for Taproot activation. Please define "achieved consensus", because by any definition I can imagine, this is simply untrue. > > This is one of the most misleading statements I've seen here. It's not > > > > technically a lie, because it states what "should" happen. But it is > > > > clearly intended to lead people to believe that BIP8 was actually used > > > > ("again") - it was not. ST was some technical tweaks to BIP9. > > BIP 8 was used to activate Taproot. No, it wasn't. I find it hard to imaging how you rationalize such grossly misleading statements. > > The outright deception around this one topic has led to significant > > > > unnecessary conflict in the community. Make your argument, but make it > > > > honestly. > > You are the one attempting to deceive here. That is for others to decide. I appreciate your responses above, since they certainly help clarify what is happening here. e bitcoin-dev mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list email@example.com https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev