📅 Original date posted:2022-04-24
📝 Original message:On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 12:13:08PM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
> You're not even considering user resistance in your cases.
Of course I am. Again:
> > My claim is that for *any* bad (evil, flawed, whatever) softfork, then
> > attempting activation via bip8 is *never* superior to speedy trial,
> > and in some cases is worse.
> >
> > If I'm missing something, you only need to work through a single example
> > to demonstrate I'm wrong, which seems like it ought to be easy... But
> > just saying "I disagree" and "I don't want to talk about that" isn't
> > going to convince anyone.
The "some cases" where bip8 with lot=true is *worse* than speedy trial
is when miners correctly see that a bad fork is bad.
Under *any* other circumstance, when they're used to activate a bad soft
fork, speedy trial and bip8 are the same. If a resistance method works
against bip8, it works against speedy trial; if it fails against speedy
trial, it fails against bip8.
> Sorry for the aggressive tone, but I when people ignore some of my points
> repeteadly, I start to wonder if they do it on purpose.
Perhaps examine the beam in your own eye.
Cheers,
aj
Anthony Towns [ARCHIVE] /
npub17r…x9l2h
2023-06-07 23:07:05
in reply to nevent1q…29ll
Author Public Key
npub17rld56k4365lfphyd8u8kwuejey5xcazdxptserx03wc4jc9g24stx9l2hPublished at
2023-06-07 23:07:05Event JSON
{
"id": "821c1b2cd4a814ac19635fbe05adc3134938d62d007f185d1a338751bf374f18",
"pubkey": "f0feda6ad58ea9f486e469f87b3b9996494363a26982b864667c5d8acb0542ab",
"created_at": 1686179225,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"71fdbe6d124fd3a1fedf27070b6e15aea47bf689ee68bddf05a0d32ebbd5d875",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"eeef851bf64a13af46823d92a397876e6df8967869550a95ce813a6acea0d836",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-04-24\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 12:13:08PM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:\n\u003e You're not even considering user resistance in your cases. \n\nOf course I am. Again:\n\n\u003e \u003e My claim is that for *any* bad (evil, flawed, whatever) softfork, then\n\u003e \u003e attempting activation via bip8 is *never* superior to speedy trial,\n\u003e \u003e and in some cases is worse.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e If I'm missing something, you only need to work through a single example\n\u003e \u003e to demonstrate I'm wrong, which seems like it ought to be easy... But\n\u003e \u003e just saying \"I disagree\" and \"I don't want to talk about that\" isn't\n\u003e \u003e going to convince anyone.\n\nThe \"some cases\" where bip8 with lot=true is *worse* than speedy trial\nis when miners correctly see that a bad fork is bad.\n\nUnder *any* other circumstance, when they're used to activate a bad soft\nfork, speedy trial and bip8 are the same. If a resistance method works\nagainst bip8, it works against speedy trial; if it fails against speedy\ntrial, it fails against bip8.\n\n\u003e Sorry for the aggressive tone, but I when people ignore some of my points\n\u003e repeteadly, I start to wonder if they do it on purpose. \n\nPerhaps examine the beam in your own eye.\n\nCheers,\naj",
"sig": "915922a2cf4032802bf6e7fbf92b5e7ee875edddfbb9ee5cff2d484d23ba89a71e015d8f4265c93a17542988ef00a1007deb75e817bac02f28272581d397bfad"
}