📅 Original date posted:2022-01-18
📝 Original message:On Tuesday 18 January 2022 22:02:24 eric at voskuil.org wrote:
> The only material distinction between BIP9 and BIP8 is that the latter may
> activate without signaled support of hash power enforcement.
>
> As unenforced soft forks are not "backward compatible" they produce a chain
> split.
Enforcement of the Bitcoin consensus protocol is by users, not miners.
Softforks never produce a chain split. Miners can, and might try to do it to
cause disruption in retaliation, but the softfork itself does not.
> It was for this reason alone that BIP8 never gained sufficient
> support.
BIP 8 in fact achieved consensus for Taproot activation.
> This is one of the most misleading statements I've seen here. It's not
> technically a lie, because it states what "should" happen. But it is
> clearly intended to lead people to believe that BIP8 was actually used
> ("again") - it was not. ST was some technical tweaks to BIP9.
BIP 8 was used to activate Taproot.
> The outright deception around this one topic has led to significant
> unnecessary conflict in the community. Make your argument, but make it
> honestly.
You are the one attempting to deceive here.
Luke
Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tf…rfq0n
2023-06-07 23:02:31
in reply to nevent1q…s6mx
Author Public Key
npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nPublished at
2023-06-07 23:02:31Event JSON
{
"id": "1c09c349362035b3fdf728cecf357e2df60520547cfec8f3ff7c1b06f136b3a2",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686178951,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"03da030e3b313ae60c6ce63f7e2349e6c30d49bd45d38ae242a67e28557d2786",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b7de65a60b29fb715b77a91b4fb50804139ab031213a47620bfd857e39d8496f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1c6b6b98622ba25104591136013eadc67e5a75a9327400cb9f2b9ac5027462c3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-01-18\n📝 Original message:On Tuesday 18 January 2022 22:02:24 eric at voskuil.org wrote:\n\u003e The only material distinction between BIP9 and BIP8 is that the latter may\n\u003e activate without signaled support of hash power enforcement.\n\u003e\n\u003e As unenforced soft forks are not \"backward compatible\" they produce a chain\n\u003e split.\n\nEnforcement of the Bitcoin consensus protocol is by users, not miners.\n\nSoftforks never produce a chain split. Miners can, and might try to do it to \ncause disruption in retaliation, but the softfork itself does not.\n\n\u003e It was for this reason alone that BIP8 never gained sufficient \n\u003e support.\n\nBIP 8 in fact achieved consensus for Taproot activation.\n\n\u003e This is one of the most misleading statements I've seen here. It's not\n\u003e technically a lie, because it states what \"should\" happen. But it is\n\u003e clearly intended to lead people to believe that BIP8 was actually used\n\u003e (\"again\") - it was not. ST was some technical tweaks to BIP9.\n\nBIP 8 was used to activate Taproot.\n\n\u003e The outright deception around this one topic has led to significant\n\u003e unnecessary conflict in the community. Make your argument, but make it\n\u003e honestly.\n\nYou are the one attempting to deceive here.\n\nLuke",
"sig": "f07cf51ab22baa8c5781e68101b174a15f3587ae37130e1a9d39d61f94b5cf55605b9397aecaa5f2b7e0e7b24cf2bc4b909b5078f96cc476492c157ac3770e89"
}