š
Original date posted:2016-10-28
š Original message:On 10/27/2016 11:38 AM, Andrew via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I have been reading recently through the history of soft forks
> provided by Bitcoin Core:
> https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/43538/where-can-i-find-a-record-of-blockchain-soft-forks.
>
> It has led me to think that there is a deceiving notion that soft
> forks do not force Bitcoin users to upgrade software. Yes, it's true
> that the past soft forks still allow old nodes to accept blocks under
> the tighter rules as valid, but what about miners who are still using
> old software? What about users who want to make a transaction using
> the old rules? Those people are no longer able to do those things. And
> if they want to do those things, a hard fork will result.
A soft fork means that a transaction using the old rules will still
work. Look at segwit, you can still make the original style of
transactions with P2PK, P2PKH, and P2SH outputs. There is nothing here
to cause a hard fork.
> Remember what happened when BIP 66 was activated? Luckily, it was
> short lived, but this is just the beginning. If you keep tightening
> the rules, you are building up more and more pressure for a split in
> the network to occur. You can call this split a "hard fork" or just a
> "fork", but it is dangerous either way, and it leads to basically the
> creation of two coins when before we just had one, people instantly
> lose value, and the trust in Bitcoin's store of value dies.
BIP 66's hard fork was not due to the soft fork making transactions
invalid. Rather it was because miners were not properly validating
blocks before building on top of them. That fork was because a
non-upgraded miner created a block invalid under the new rules and
upgraded miners did not check the block and built on top of it. That
invalid block was only invalid because the isSuperMajority mechanism
specified that the new version number must be used otherwise the block
was invalid, and that was what happened: the invalid block had the old
version number. This is not an issue for BIP 9 Versionbits soft forks
because no such rule exists.
>
> Obviously every one can debate about what should be the definition of
> a soft fork, but whatever that is, I think it is unacceptable how
> sloppily the past soft forks have been deployed.
In what way have these forks been sloppily deployed? The fork caused by
previous a soft forks (there was only one that caused that had an actual
chain split issue) was due to the isSuperMajority mechanism which is not
a good mechanism for deployment. It has been superseded by BIP 9
Versionbits. Furthermore, that fork was not due to "sloppy deployment"
by the devs but rather due to greedy miners who were SPV mining.
> I can think of many ways in which we could have these new features
> that the soft forks provided, but without forcing the new rules, and
> simply making them features that can be used on an individual miner or
> transaction signer basis. Is there a document from Bitcoin Core that
> outlines the philosophy of soft forks and why it is acceptable to
> force the tightening of rules and cause such risks? And please give me
> another reason other than "it removes a few if statements from the code".
Can you explain what other risks you think there are with soft forks?
>
> Now that Segregated witness is scheduled to be deployed on November
> 15, we should take a look at this "soft fork" as well. I like the idea
> of Segregated Witness, but from conversations on Reddit and IRC, I see
> people saying that this soft fork will be like the others: requiring a
> hard fork in order to revert it. Is this true?
If you are reading r/btc, you are doing something wrong.
Like with all soft forks, the only way to revert them is by a hard fork.
Soft forks make previously valid things invalid, hard forks make
previously invalid things valid. In order to revert a soft fork which
made something invalid, you need to hard fork to make it valid again.
> I am getting conflicting messages by reading the BIP. It says that if
> all transactions are non-segwit, then a node will validate the block
> as before. But if we pass the threshhold (usually 95 % for 1000
> blocks) will miners mining non-segwit blocks be ignored? This is not
> good... I really think we should make it optional. Miners will have an
> incentive to mine segwit blocks, since it allows for more transactions
> per block, so why force them?
No. This is incorrect. There is no requirement to include the witness
commitment in the coinbase if no transactions in the block contain
witnesses. Because transactions that contain witnesses are considered
non-standard transactions by the old rules, if a miner who did not
upgrade continues to follow those standardness rules, their blocks will
not be invalid and they are not forced to upgrade.
> What if we want to slightly modify the Segwit protocol in the future?
> What if we want to replace segwit with something much different? We
> will be forced to do a hard fork in order to do that.
Not necessarily, it depends on the change. Most changes (such as
sighashing, new opcodes, different scripts, etc.) can be done via
another soft fork because segwit introduces script versioning. A new
script version would be created with the necessary changes and that can
be soft forked in.
>
> Now, we can't go back in time and fix the deployment of the soft
> forks, but I do propose one clean way to fix things: Remove all the
> previously "soft forked" rules for non segwit transactions, and
> require them only for segwit transactions. But make segwit optional!
> In addition to what I talked about above, this may also relieve some
> tensions of people who are not comfortable with segwit and are
> thinking of joining a hard fork like the Bitcoin Unlimited project.
Segwit already is optional. If you don't want to use segwit, you don't
have to. If you don't want to mine segwit blocks, you don't have to.
As for removing all previously soft forked things, then you would be
removing a ton of functionality, various fixes, and potentially break a
large number of transactions that already exists but are not confirmed
yet. This would require a hard fork.
As for what is would be reverted, you would be reverting P2SH (multisig
addresses, you still want those right?), OP_CLTV, OP_CSV, block height
requirement in Coinbase, the value overflow incident, removal of
dangerous opcodes, reduction of block size limit, etc. As you can see, a
lot of functionality and various bug fixes would be lost be reverting
every single soft fork.
>
> Unless people can give me a good explanation as to why we are
> deploying soft forks in such forceful manner,
As I have said throughout this response, soft forks are not deployed in
a forceful manner which forces people to upgrade.
> or Bitcoin Core accepts my proposal, then I will have no choice but to
> create a new client (I'm thinking to call it Bitcoin Authentic), that
> will be just as Bitcoin Core but will always follow the chain with the
> most work regardless of whether soft fork rules are respected, and I
> would put at least CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY as mandatory within segwit
> transactions.
Great, go ahead. Honestly, I don't think anyone cares about your
"ultimatum". You are a random person on the internet.
>
> --
> PGP: B6AC 822C 451D 6304 6A28 49E9 7DB7 011C D53B 5647
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161028/72db51a8/attachment-0001.html>;
Andrew C [ARCHIVE] /
npub1vcā¦xz0wk
2023-06-07 17:54:11
in reply to nevent1qā¦46l5
Author Public Key
npub1vceyhqxfhemlfq82ztdv9gqgc08zq2680yzy4dfuly7h8pqrkwps0xz0wkPublished at
2023-06-07 17:54:11Event JSON
{
"id": "7b2bb1628908a18bd05ec446bdf136ed1d9c8781993e2684f3106e602dc93b03",
"pubkey": "66324b80c9be77f480ea12dac2a008c3ce202b4779044ab53cf93d738403b383",
"created_at": 1686160451,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"749bc40254e49b3451fcdfcf1f95a3757a6fed70c5cd45c6c58950cc979923ee",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"5efd73f326950da2d6d629d13099364c13e3c21c909fd6a98b1c8af5b6453de4",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"533e45ffeb94bc88c14af70b25994838170e7910c1273994b63bce468eac2230"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2016-10-28\nš Original message:On 10/27/2016 11:38 AM, Andrew via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e I have been reading recently through the history of soft forks\n\u003e provided by Bitcoin Core:\n\u003e https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/43538/where-can-i-find-a-record-of-blockchain-soft-forks.\n\u003e\n\u003e It has led me to think that there is a deceiving notion that soft\n\u003e forks do not force Bitcoin users to upgrade software. Yes, it's true\n\u003e that the past soft forks still allow old nodes to accept blocks under\n\u003e the tighter rules as valid, but what about miners who are still using\n\u003e old software? What about users who want to make a transaction using\n\u003e the old rules? Those people are no longer able to do those things. And\n\u003e if they want to do those things, a hard fork will result.\nA soft fork means that a transaction using the old rules will still\nwork. Look at segwit, you can still make the original style of\ntransactions with P2PK, P2PKH, and P2SH outputs. There is nothing here\nto cause a hard fork.\n\n\u003e Remember what happened when BIP 66 was activated? Luckily, it was\n\u003e short lived, but this is just the beginning. If you keep tightening\n\u003e the rules, you are building up more and more pressure for a split in\n\u003e the network to occur. You can call this split a \"hard fork\" or just a\n\u003e \"fork\", but it is dangerous either way, and it leads to basically the\n\u003e creation of two coins when before we just had one, people instantly\n\u003e lose value, and the trust in Bitcoin's store of value dies.\nBIP 66's hard fork was not due to the soft fork making transactions\ninvalid. Rather it was because miners were not properly validating\nblocks before building on top of them. That fork was because a\nnon-upgraded miner created a block invalid under the new rules and\nupgraded miners did not check the block and built on top of it. That\ninvalid block was only invalid because the isSuperMajority mechanism\nspecified that the new version number must be used otherwise the block\nwas invalid, and that was what happened: the invalid block had the old\nversion number. This is not an issue for BIP 9 Versionbits soft forks\nbecause no such rule exists.\n\u003e\n\u003e Obviously every one can debate about what should be the definition of\n\u003e a soft fork, but whatever that is, I think it is unacceptable how\n\u003e sloppily the past soft forks have been deployed.\nIn what way have these forks been sloppily deployed? The fork caused by\nprevious a soft forks (there was only one that caused that had an actual\nchain split issue) was due to the isSuperMajority mechanism which is not\na good mechanism for deployment. It has been superseded by BIP 9\nVersionbits. Furthermore, that fork was not due to \"sloppy deployment\"\nby the devs but rather due to greedy miners who were SPV mining.\n\u003e I can think of many ways in which we could have these new features\n\u003e that the soft forks provided, but without forcing the new rules, and\n\u003e simply making them features that can be used on an individual miner or\n\u003e transaction signer basis. Is there a document from Bitcoin Core that\n\u003e outlines the philosophy of soft forks and why it is acceptable to\n\u003e force the tightening of rules and cause such risks? And please give me\n\u003e another reason other than \"it removes a few if statements from the code\".\nCan you explain what other risks you think there are with soft forks?\n\u003e\n\u003e Now that Segregated witness is scheduled to be deployed on November\n\u003e 15, we should take a look at this \"soft fork\" as well. I like the idea\n\u003e of Segregated Witness, but from conversations on Reddit and IRC, I see\n\u003e people saying that this soft fork will be like the others: requiring a\n\u003e hard fork in order to revert it. Is this true?\nIf you are reading r/btc, you are doing something wrong.\n\nLike with all soft forks, the only way to revert them is by a hard fork.\nSoft forks make previously valid things invalid, hard forks make\npreviously invalid things valid. In order to revert a soft fork which\nmade something invalid, you need to hard fork to make it valid again.\n\u003e I am getting conflicting messages by reading the BIP. It says that if\n\u003e all transactions are non-segwit, then a node will validate the block\n\u003e as before. But if we pass the threshhold (usually 95 % for 1000\n\u003e blocks) will miners mining non-segwit blocks be ignored? This is not\n\u003e good... I really think we should make it optional. Miners will have an\n\u003e incentive to mine segwit blocks, since it allows for more transactions\n\u003e per block, so why force them?\nNo. This is incorrect. There is no requirement to include the witness\ncommitment in the coinbase if no transactions in the block contain\nwitnesses. Because transactions that contain witnesses are considered\nnon-standard transactions by the old rules, if a miner who did not\nupgrade continues to follow those standardness rules, their blocks will\nnot be invalid and they are not forced to upgrade.\n\u003e What if we want to slightly modify the Segwit protocol in the future?\n\u003e What if we want to replace segwit with something much different? We\n\u003e will be forced to do a hard fork in order to do that.\nNot necessarily, it depends on the change. Most changes (such as\nsighashing, new opcodes, different scripts, etc.) can be done via\nanother soft fork because segwit introduces script versioning. A new\nscript version would be created with the necessary changes and that can\nbe soft forked in.\n\u003e\n\u003e Now, we can't go back in time and fix the deployment of the soft\n\u003e forks, but I do propose one clean way to fix things: Remove all the\n\u003e previously \"soft forked\" rules for non segwit transactions, and\n\u003e require them only for segwit transactions. But make segwit optional!\n\u003e In addition to what I talked about above, this may also relieve some\n\u003e tensions of people who are not comfortable with segwit and are\n\u003e thinking of joining a hard fork like the Bitcoin Unlimited project.\nSegwit already is optional. If you don't want to use segwit, you don't\nhave to. If you don't want to mine segwit blocks, you don't have to.\n\nAs for removing all previously soft forked things, then you would be\nremoving a ton of functionality, various fixes, and potentially break a\nlarge number of transactions that already exists but are not confirmed\nyet. This would require a hard fork.\n\nAs for what is would be reverted, you would be reverting P2SH (multisig\naddresses, you still want those right?), OP_CLTV, OP_CSV, block height\nrequirement in Coinbase, the value overflow incident, removal of\ndangerous opcodes, reduction of block size limit, etc. As you can see, a\nlot of functionality and various bug fixes would be lost be reverting\nevery single soft fork.\n\u003e\n\u003e Unless people can give me a good explanation as to why we are\n\u003e deploying soft forks in such forceful manner,\nAs I have said throughout this response, soft forks are not deployed in\na forceful manner which forces people to upgrade.\n\u003e or Bitcoin Core accepts my proposal, then I will have no choice but to\n\u003e create a new client (I'm thinking to call it Bitcoin Authentic), that\n\u003e will be just as Bitcoin Core but will always follow the chain with the\n\u003e most work regardless of whether soft fork rules are respected, and I\n\u003e would put at least CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY as mandatory within segwit\n\u003e transactions.\nGreat, go ahead. Honestly, I don't think anyone cares about your\n\"ultimatum\". You are a random person on the internet.\n\u003e\n\u003e -- \n\u003e PGP: B6AC 822C 451D 6304 6A28 49E9 7DB7 011C D53B 5647\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161028/72db51a8/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "a3f42a6c90e871c4b437eb37d12df37b1ad4c9d12f40c58742fc061e7e9a046fe6d87417036b7f552205a8c7528d7035119d8a93542e562e7ac4ddbf361eda2e"
}