📅 Original date posted:2022-03-30
📝 Original message:On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 09:31:18AM +0100, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > In particular, any approach that allows you to block an evil fork,
> > even when everyone else doesn't agree that it's evil, would also allow
> > an enemy of bitcoin to block a good fork, that everyone else correctly
> > recognises is good. A solution that works for an implausible hypothetical
> > and breaks when a single attacker decides to take advantage of it is
> > not a good design.
> Let's discuss those too. Feel free to point out how bip8 fails at some
> hypothetical cases speedy trial doesn't.
Any case where a flawed proposal makes it through getting activation
parameters set and released, but doesn't achieve supermajority hashpower
support is made worse by bip8/lot=true in comparison to speedy trial.
That's true both because of the "trial" part, in that activation can fail
and you can go back to the drawing board without having to get everyone
upgrade a second time, and also the "speedy" part, in that you don't
have to wait a year or more before you even know what's going to happen.
> > 0') someone has come up with a good idea (yay!)
> > 1') most of bitcoin is enthusiastically behind the idea
> > 2') an enemy of bitcoin is essentially alone in trying to stop it
> > 3') almost everyone remains enthusiastic, despite that guy's incoherent
> > raving
> > 4') nevertheless, the enemies of bitcoin should have the power to stop
> > the good idea
> "That guy's incoherent raving"
> "I'm just disagreeing".
Uh, you realise the above is an alternative hypothetical, and not talking
about you? I would have thought "that guy" being "an enemy of bitcoin"
made that obvious... I think you're mistaken; I don't think your emails
are incoherent ravings.
It was intended to be the simplest possible case of where someone being
able to block a change is undesirable: they're motivated by trying to
harm bitcoin, they're as far as possible from being part of some economic
majority, and they don't even have a coherent rationale to provide for
blocking the idea.
Cheers,
aj
Anthony Towns [ARCHIVE] /
npub17r…x9l2h
2023-06-07 23:06:18
in reply to nevent1q…cgxy
Author Public Key
npub17rld56k4365lfphyd8u8kwuejey5xcazdxptserx03wc4jc9g24stx9l2hPublished at
2023-06-07 23:06:18Event JSON
{
"id": "f396ab4ad234656fd2c88ec0d535ed3b3f305393444048b6c354e95ab1fa2c4f",
"pubkey": "f0feda6ad58ea9f486e469f87b3b9996494363a26982b864667c5d8acb0542ab",
"created_at": 1686179178,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a5af5e39047c2302ef2c813ca29b2c17152d49444d282becfeb36106acf5ee47",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"06617aff24450e71975a12df10d444b4d144b5a8862058418784623e4f298fb4",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-03-30\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 09:31:18AM +0100, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e In particular, any approach that allows you to block an evil fork,\n\u003e \u003e even when everyone else doesn't agree that it's evil, would also allow\n\u003e \u003e an enemy of bitcoin to block a good fork, that everyone else correctly\n\u003e \u003e recognises is good. A solution that works for an implausible hypothetical\n\u003e \u003e and breaks when a single attacker decides to take advantage of it is\n\u003e \u003e not a good design.\n\u003e Let's discuss those too. Feel free to point out how bip8 fails at some\n\u003e hypothetical cases speedy trial doesn't.\n\nAny case where a flawed proposal makes it through getting activation\nparameters set and released, but doesn't achieve supermajority hashpower\nsupport is made worse by bip8/lot=true in comparison to speedy trial.\n\nThat's true both because of the \"trial\" part, in that activation can fail\nand you can go back to the drawing board without having to get everyone\nupgrade a second time, and also the \"speedy\" part, in that you don't\nhave to wait a year or more before you even know what's going to happen.\n\n\u003e \u003e 0') someone has come up with a good idea (yay!)\n\u003e \u003e 1') most of bitcoin is enthusiastically behind the idea\n\u003e \u003e 2') an enemy of bitcoin is essentially alone in trying to stop it\n\u003e \u003e 3') almost everyone remains enthusiastic, despite that guy's incoherent\n\u003e \u003e raving\n\u003e \u003e 4') nevertheless, the enemies of bitcoin should have the power to stop\n\u003e \u003e the good idea\n\u003e \"That guy's incoherent raving\"\n\u003e \"I'm just disagreeing\".\n\nUh, you realise the above is an alternative hypothetical, and not talking\nabout you? I would have thought \"that guy\" being \"an enemy of bitcoin\"\nmade that obvious... I think you're mistaken; I don't think your emails\nare incoherent ravings.\n\nIt was intended to be the simplest possible case of where someone being\nable to block a change is undesirable: they're motivated by trying to\nharm bitcoin, they're as far as possible from being part of some economic\nmajority, and they don't even have a coherent rationale to provide for\nblocking the idea.\n\nCheers,\naj",
"sig": "e156983534c4c29b3456be18af2416df1c3563ef8a84660d44d21cf2265f430560d63ad84b79fd9c9e834c6ec3374b64ee6b4704d74defaa1f9337e55dbac40a"
}