📅 Original date posted:2017-06-14
📝 Original message:Hi Jameson:
> 在 2017年6月15日，01:20，Jameson Lopp <jameson.lopp at gmail.com <mailto:jameson.lopp at gmail.com>> 写道：
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Zheming Lin via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
>
> > 在 2017年6月14日，02:11，Gregory Maxwell <greg at xiph.org <mailto:greg at xiph.org>> 写道：
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:23 AM, Zheming Lin via bitcoin-dev
> > <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> > The enforcement of the system's rules by users broadly, and not just
> > miners, is specifically described in the white paper (section 8,
> > paragraph 2, it especially clear in the last sentence). This is
> > critical for the security of Bitcoin especially with the current
> > degree of centralization in pools. Without it, Bitcoin's security
> > would look a lot more like the Ripple system.
> >
>
> 是的，用户永远都有选择，并可以抛弃那些节点。这个 BIP 并没有反对这些用户这么做。只有那些被动的钱包用户，他们需要知道必须做出一个选择。（而不是被动的跟随默认的策略）
> Yes, users always have choice that they can abandon the nodes. This BIP does’t go against them. I mean only the one(especially wallets) that’s passive, they need to know there’s a choice and pick one.
>
> 这个 BIP 可以被应用于几乎任何的升级上，包括隔离见证，两兆的隔离见证，两兆扩容，涌现共识，八兆扩容等。但这些升级并不是重点。
> This BIP can be applied to almost any upgrade, including Segwit, Segwit2x, 2m, ec, 8m… but the upgrade is not the key point.
>
> 到底我们的用户是否真的拥有选择？
> Did the users have any real choice?
>
> 我并不能理解他们相信大部分矿工（就像当前一样），但拒绝这些多数矿工对协议改变的投票结果。
> I don’t see the reason they trust the majority miners(as they do today) but refuse the vote for upcoming protocol upgrade.
>
> To be clear, Bitcoin is not a democracy - if you find yourself using the term "voting" then you may be misunderstanding how consensus forms. Once a feature has been vetted and the code is deployed, miners may signal that they are ready to enforce new rules. If for some reason miners are too "passive or lazy" or wish to "veto" the activation of the new rules, users may choose to circumvent said veto by refusing to accept blocks that do not show readiness for enforcing the new rules.
How does the users show their opinion? They can fork away and leave. But what remains will be united. Are you afraid of the united users or the fork?
I agree with you that the “vote” is not accurate. Could you kindly suggest an other word for that?
I think users should have choice to follow the miners or not. Do you agree with this or not?
>
>
> 对钱包用户的选择，是他们是否相信多数矿工。如果他们不相信，可以通过分叉来消除掉矿工。
> This choice for wallet users right now, is wether to follow the 51% majority miners. If they don’t, they can have their fork that get rid of miners.
>
> 如果他们仍旧相信矿工，那么可以留下来并跟随矿工将来的协议改变。
> If they do trust the majority miners, they stay and follow the vote for upcoming protocol upgrade.
>
> 所以问题在于：比特币的开发者、用户、拥有者、服务提供者、甚至矿工，是否（仍然）如白皮书中描述的对大多数矿工拥有信任。
> So the questions is: Do the bitcoin developers, users, holders, service provides, even miners, (still) have faith in the majority of miners as designed in the white paper?
>
>
> There is a fundamental misconception regarding this point - the white paper refers to majority hashpower needing to be honest with regard to determining the correct chain within the context of many possible /valid/ chain forks. It is not referring to using hashpower to determine the correct chain amongst an infinitely variable number of currently invalid chain forks. Bitcoin ecosystem participants should not have faith in miners (or any other entity) when it comes to choosing the consensus rules they wish to enforce.
>
Arrrgh. I think in the BIP, the miners just invalids tx version 1 temporarily. That’s a “soft fork” right? If they dislike the idea, they can leave as always.
Regards
LIN Zheming
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170615/eb46818c/attachment-0001.html>;
Zheming Lin [ARCHIVE] /
npub1x5…mvxun
2023-06-07 18:03:15
in reply to nevent1q…2rl7
Author Public Key
npub1x55e20lfke62crkg7kzal52xld75p4q99du22ya5wn5jl24a4qyqtmvxunSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 18:03:15Event JSON
{
"id": "dad391e0c41b4bc2dca8653e4a3be4d2fabb47719874cba6530f74be437036a4",
"pubkey": "3529953fe9b674ac0ec8f585dfd146fb7d40d4052b78a513b474e92faabda808",
"created_at": 1686160995,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8e522895d21be227af835b3e6e74fa6d504083d89382f4a607d77fdc73cfe6ab",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"de772d02ff2f81ab2e98c85b771e1ddd260cf2d2590cdf606a268d495df6e309",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"45d091c7bcdbb8674dc8b91c60f7323053ab1432c4c882fd2d9897fe502eebed"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-06-14\n📝 Original message:Hi Jameson:\n\n\u003e 在 2017年6月15日，01:20，Jameson Lopp \u003cjameson.lopp at gmail.com \u003cmailto:jameson.lopp at gmail.com\u003e\u003e 写道：\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Zheming Lin via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e 在 2017年6月14日，02:11，Gregory Maxwell \u003cgreg at xiph.org \u003cmailto:greg at xiph.org\u003e\u003e 写道：\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:23 AM, Zheming Lin via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e The enforcement of the system's rules by users broadly, and not just\n\u003e \u003e miners, is specifically described in the white paper (section 8,\n\u003e \u003e paragraph 2, it especially clear in the last sentence). This is\n\u003e \u003e critical for the security of Bitcoin especially with the current\n\u003e \u003e degree of centralization in pools. Without it, Bitcoin's security\n\u003e \u003e would look a lot more like the Ripple system.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e 是的，用户永远都有选择，并可以抛弃那些节点。这个 BIP 并没有反对这些用户这么做。只有那些被动的钱包用户，他们需要知道必须做出一个选择。（而不是被动的跟随默认的策略）\n\u003e Yes, users always have choice that they can abandon the nodes. This BIP does’t go against them. I mean only the one(especially wallets) that’s passive, they need to know there’s a choice and pick one.\n\u003e \n\u003e 这个 BIP 可以被应用于几乎任何的升级上，包括隔离见证，两兆的隔离见证，两兆扩容，涌现共识，八兆扩容等。但这些升级并不是重点。\n\u003e This BIP can be applied to almost any upgrade, including Segwit, Segwit2x, 2m, ec, 8m… but the upgrade is not the key point.\n\u003e \n\u003e 到底我们的用户是否真的拥有选择？\n\u003e Did the users have any real choice?\n\u003e \n\u003e 我并不能理解他们相信大部分矿工（就像当前一样），但拒绝这些多数矿工对协议改变的投票结果。\n\u003e I don’t see the reason they trust the majority miners(as they do today) but refuse the vote for upcoming protocol upgrade.\n\u003e \n\u003e To be clear, Bitcoin is not a democracy - if you find yourself using the term \"voting\" then you may be misunderstanding how consensus forms. Once a feature has been vetted and the code is deployed, miners may signal that they are ready to enforce new rules. If for some reason miners are too \"passive or lazy\" or wish to \"veto\" the activation of the new rules, users may choose to circumvent said veto by refusing to accept blocks that do not show readiness for enforcing the new rules.\n\nHow does the users show their opinion? They can fork away and leave. But what remains will be united. Are you afraid of the united users or the fork?\n\nI agree with you that the “vote” is not accurate. Could you kindly suggest an other word for that?\n\nI think users should have choice to follow the miners or not. Do you agree with this or not?\n\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e 对钱包用户的选择，是他们是否相信多数矿工。如果他们不相信，可以通过分叉来消除掉矿工。\n\u003e This choice for wallet users right now, is wether to follow the 51% majority miners. If they don’t, they can have their fork that get rid of miners.\n\u003e \n\u003e 如果他们仍旧相信矿工，那么可以留下来并跟随矿工将来的协议改变。\n\u003e If they do trust the majority miners, they stay and follow the vote for upcoming protocol upgrade.\n\u003e \n\u003e 所以问题在于：比特币的开发者、用户、拥有者、服务提供者、甚至矿工，是否（仍然）如白皮书中描述的对大多数矿工拥有信任。\n\u003e So the questions is: Do the bitcoin developers, users, holders, service provides, even miners, (still) have faith in the majority of miners as designed in the white paper?\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e There is a fundamental misconception regarding this point - the white paper refers to majority hashpower needing to be honest with regard to determining the correct chain within the context of many possible /valid/ chain forks. It is not referring to using hashpower to determine the correct chain amongst an infinitely variable number of currently invalid chain forks. Bitcoin ecosystem participants should not have faith in miners (or any other entity) when it comes to choosing the consensus rules they wish to enforce.\n\u003e \n\nArrrgh. I think in the BIP, the miners just invalids tx version 1 temporarily. That’s a “soft fork” right? If they dislike the idea, they can leave as always.\n\n\nRegards\n\nLIN Zheming\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170615/eb46818c/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "f770b3dc4d7074a23f31f5bd371b5974e37b3270c3e6e309fc1a7aa6e8584a8230de23f026e1a7e00f232252e987f63a66c710397d2cac626b33eb95c29a621e"
}