> No it does not. This narrative is the worst. A bad explanation of speedy
> trial can mislead people into thinking miner signalling is how Bitcoin
> upgrades are voted in. But a bad explanation can explain anything badly.
I agree it is worst but why do you think this narrative exists? People have
tried explaining it. Many users, miners and exchanges still think its voting. I
think the problem is with activation method so BIP 8/LOT=TRUE is a solution.
> The solution is not to change how we engineer soft forks, it's to explain
> speedy trial better to this imaginary group of important people that think
> miner signaling is voting.
We can suggest different solutions but the problem exists and it is not an
imaginary group of people.
One example of a mining pool: https://archive.ph/oyH04
> We shouldn't change how we engineer Bitcoin because of optics. I completely
> object to that point continuing to be used.
Voting as described on wiki is quite similar to what happens during miners
signaling followed by activation if a certain threshold is reached. If some
participants in this process consider it voting instead of signaling for
readiness then listing advantages of a better activation method should help
everyone reading this thread/email.
Sorry, I don't understand your objection. I see a problem that exists since
years and a better activation method fixes it. There are other positives for
using BIP 8/LOT=TRUE which I shared in
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-March/020178.html
I will continue to discuss this problem with solutions until we use better
activation methods for future soft forks in any discussion about activation
methods.
pushd
---
parallel lines meet at infinity?
------- Original Message -------
On Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 1:40 AM, Billy Tetrud <billy.tet...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> @Pushd
>
>> Speedy trial makes it worse by misleading lot of bitcoin users including
>> miners to consider signaling as voting and majority votes decide if a soft
>> fork gets activated
>
> No it does not. This narrative is the worst. A bad explanation of speedy
> trial can mislead people into thinking miner signalling is how Bitcoin
> upgrades are voted in. But a bad explanation can explain anything badly. The
> solution is not to change how we engineer soft forks, it's to explain speedy
> trial better to this imaginary group of important people that think miner
> signaling is voting.
>
> We shouldn't change how we engineer Bitcoin because of optics. I completely
> object to that point continuing to be used.
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022, 05:36 pushd via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>>> Any case where a flawed proposal makes it through getting activation
>> parameters set and released, but doesn't achieve supermajority
>> hashpowersupport is made worse by bip8/lot=true in comparison to speedy
>> trial.
>>
>> - Flawed proposal making it through activation is a failure of review process
>>
>> - Supermajority hashpower percentage decided by bitcoin core developers can
>> choose to not follow old or new consensus rules at any point
>>
>> - Speedy trial makes it worse by misleading lot of bitcoin users including
>> miners to consider signaling as voting and majority votes decide if a soft
>> fork gets activated
>>
>> - BIP 8/LOT=TRUE keeps things simple. Miners need to follow consensus rules
>> as they do right now if they wish to mine blocks for subsidy and fees.
>>
>> Note: Mining pools or individual miners can participate in soft fork
>> discussions regardless of activation method and share their concern which
>> can be evaluated based on technical merits.
>>
>> pushd
>> ---
>> parallel lines meet at infinity?
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
