Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus protocol immutability is a feature

[Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev]

Hardforks can be useful too.
But, yes, I agree softforks are preferable whenever possible.

On Sat, May 22, 2021, 20:55 Raystonn .  wrote:

> None of these required a hard fork.  I should rephrase my previous email
> to clarify the intended topic as hard consensus changes, requiring a hard
> fork.  "Soft" forks can be useful.
>
> Raystonn
>
> --
> *From:* Jorge Timón 
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 22, 2021 7:55 AM
> *To:* Raystonn . ; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus protocol immutability is a feature
>
> That is clearly not true. People entretain making changes to the protocol
> all the time. Bitcoin is far from perfect and not improving it would be
> stupid in my opinion.
> Some improvements require changes to the consensus rules.
> Recent changes include relative lock time verify or segwit. These are
> important changes that made things like lightning much easier and efficient
> than they could possibly be without them.
> Taproot, which is a recent proposal, could help simplify the lightning
> protocol even further, and make it more efficient and its usage more
> private. And there are more use cases.
>
> There have been consensus rule changes since bitcoin started, and with
> good reason. As a user, you can always oppose new changes. And if enough
> users agree with you, you will be able to maintain your own chain with the
> old rules. At the same time, there's nothing you can do to stop other users
> who want those changes from coordinating with each other to adopt them.
>
> Perhaps you're interested in bip99, which discusses consensus rule changes
> in more detail.
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 22, 2021, 13:09 Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Suggestions to make changes to Bitcoin's consensus protocol will only ever
> be entertained if Bitcoin is completely dead without such a change.  Any
> attempt to change consensus protocol without a clear and convincing
> demonstration to the entire network of participants that Bitcoin will die
> without that change is a waste of your own time.  Bitcoin's resistance to
> consensus changes is a feature that makes it resistant to being coopted and
> corrupted.  I recommend developers focus on making improvements that do not
> attempt to change the consensus protocol.  Otherwise, you are simply
> working on an altcoin, which is off-topic here.
>
> Raystonn
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus protocol immutability is a feature

[Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev]

None of these required a hard fork.  I should rephrase my previous email to 
clarify the intended topic as hard consensus changes, requiring a hard fork.  
"Soft" forks can be useful.

Raystonn


From: Jorge Timón 
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2021 7:55 AM
To: Raystonn . ; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 

Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus protocol immutability is a feature

That is clearly not true. People entretain making changes to the protocol all 
the time. Bitcoin is far from perfect and not improving it would be stupid in 
my opinion.
Some improvements require changes to the consensus rules.
Recent changes include relative lock time verify or segwit. These are important 
changes that made things like lightning much easier and efficient than they 
could possibly be without them.
Taproot, which is a recent proposal, could help simplify the lightning protocol 
even further, and make it more efficient and its usage more private. And there 
are more use cases.

There have been consensus rule changes since bitcoin started, and with good 
reason. As a user, you can always oppose new changes. And if enough users agree 
with you, you will be able to maintain your own chain with the old rules. At 
the same time, there's nothing you can do to stop other users who want those 
changes from coordinating with each other to adopt them.

Perhaps you're interested in bip99, which discusses consensus rule changes in 
more detail.



On Sat, May 22, 2021, 13:09 Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev 
mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>>
 wrote:
Suggestions to make changes to Bitcoin's consensus protocol will only ever be 
entertained if Bitcoin is completely dead without such a change.  Any attempt 
to change consensus protocol without a clear and convincing demonstration to 
the entire network of participants that Bitcoin will die without that change is 
a waste of your own time.  Bitcoin's resistance to consensus changes is a 
feature that makes it resistant to being coopted and corrupted.  I recommend 
developers focus on making improvements that do not attempt to change the 
consensus protocol.  Otherwise, you are simply working on an altcoin, which is 
off-topic here.

Raystonn

___
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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus protocol immutability is a feature

[Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev]

That is clearly not true. People entretain making changes to the protocol
all the time. Bitcoin is far from perfect and not improving it would be
stupid in my opinion.
Some improvements require changes to the consensus rules.
Recent changes include relative lock time verify or segwit. These are
important changes that made things like lightning much easier and efficient
than they could possibly be without them.
Taproot, which is a recent proposal, could help simplify the lightning
protocol even further, and make it more efficient and its usage more
private. And there are more use cases.

There have been consensus rule changes since bitcoin started, and with good
reason. As a user, you can always oppose new changes. And if enough users
agree with you, you will be able to maintain your own chain with the old
rules. At the same time, there's nothing you can do to stop other users who
want those changes from coordinating with each other to adopt them.

Perhaps you're interested in bip99, which discusses consensus rule changes
in more detail.



On Sat, May 22, 2021, 13:09 Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Suggestions to make changes to Bitcoin's consensus protocol will only ever
> be entertained if Bitcoin is completely dead without such a change.  Any
> attempt to change consensus protocol without a clear and convincing
> demonstration to the entire network of participants that Bitcoin will die
> without that change is a waste of your own time.  Bitcoin's resistance to
> consensus changes is a feature that makes it resistant to being coopted and
> corrupted.  I recommend developers focus on making improvements that do not
> attempt to change the consensus protocol.  Otherwise, you are simply
> working on an altcoin, which is off-topic here.
>
> Raystonn
>
> ___
> 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

[bitcoin-dev] Consensus protocol immutability is a feature

[Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev]

Suggestions to make changes to Bitcoin's consensus protocol will only ever be 
entertained if Bitcoin is completely dead without such a change.  Any attempt 
to change consensus protocol without a clear and convincing demonstration to 
the entire network of participants that Bitcoin will die without that change is 
a waste of your own time.  Bitcoin's resistance to consensus changes is a 
feature that makes it resistant to being coopted and corrupted.  I recommend 
developers focus on making improvements that do not attempt to change the 
consensus protocol.  Otherwise, you are simply working on an altcoin, which is 
off-topic here.

Raystonn

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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Additional BIPs related to other proposals

[Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev]

Fair enough!

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:33 PM Luke Dashjr  wrote:

> On Friday 21 May 2021 07:56:51 Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > These look like relatively well put together documents. However, they
> seem
> > relatively orthogonal to Bitcoin in that they look like protocols that
> > build on top of the bitcoin platform but aren't directly related to
> > changing how bitcoin operates at its base layer. Am I miss reading these?
>
> BIPs are not limited to the base layer. Anything that coordinates between
> Bitcoin software at any layer can use BIPs.
>
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev