📅 Original date posted:2022-03-17
📝 Original message:@Aj Your steps seem reasonable. I definitely agree step one (talking to
each other) is obviously the ideal solution, when it works.
Step 2 (futures market) is the option I would say I understand the least.
In any case, a futures market seems like it only incorporates the
opinions/predictions of the group of people willing to bet money on things
like this. This is likely to be a rather small group of particular types of
people. I find it a bit difficult to reconcile the theories that betting
rings like this are good at predicting against the inherent selection bias
of the group of betting individuals. Going just by number of individuals
(or probably even by amount of currency risked) this seems like a futures
market would inherently be a small and biased group. Potentially useful,
but I wouldn't assume that it could be taken stand-alone as a proxy for
consensus.
I'm curious what you think about a coin-weighted poll like I suggested here
<https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-May/019022.html>;
being
added to that list of steps? Surely this would be a broader group of people
than a futures market, tho still obviously a group subject to selection
bias.
@jeremy drops the bomb. I'm sure Jorge will be running this within the
year.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 12:25 PM Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Boker tov bitcoin devs,
>
> A mechanism of soft-forking against activation exists. What more do you
>> want?
>>
>
> Agreed -- that should be enough.
>
>
>
>> Are we supposed to write the code on behalf of this hypothetical group of
>> users who may or may not exist for them just so that they can have a node
>> that remains stalled on Speedy Trial lockin?
>>
> That simply isn't reasonable, but if you think it is, I invite you to
>> create such a fork.
>>
>
> Disagree.
>
> It is a reasonable ask.
>
> I've done it in about 40 lines of python:
> https://github.com/jeremyrubin/forkd
>
> Merry Christmas Jorge, please vet the code carefully before running.
>
> Peace,
>
> Jeremy
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220316/0bf6deff/attachment.html>;
Billy Tetrud [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xq…tcnns
2023-06-07 23:06:05
in reply to nevent1q…nwzl
Author Public Key
npub1xqcwcttsyk0a64d63crrwsxp88pa42np37rw87hrfn4uku78g2aqltcnnsPublished at
2023-06-07 23:06:05Event JSON
{
"id": "c1ac34d136528b4eb26f3dcd70c85e6a0f195d23ca32a1cc419d480aef87eb52",
"pubkey": "3030ec2d70259fdd55ba8e063740c139c3daaa618f86e3fae34cebcb73c742ba",
"created_at": 1686179165,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a5af5e39047c2302ef2c813ca29b2c17152d49444d282becfeb36106acf5ee47",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e9742bf9689c33b1a90746550ed7ed1f75599726dc9b493fb3af66d9fe75fb1f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"372c316761360b4ea20f2d7e81a59363b7e45b8e945a5381c3122049c2c4b84a"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-03-17\n📝 Original message:@Aj Your steps seem reasonable. I definitely agree step one (talking to\neach other) is obviously the ideal solution, when it works.\n\nStep 2 (futures market) is the option I would say I understand the least.\nIn any case, a futures market seems like it only incorporates the\nopinions/predictions of the group of people willing to bet money on things\nlike this. This is likely to be a rather small group of particular types of\npeople. I find it a bit difficult to reconcile the theories that betting\nrings like this are good at predicting against the inherent selection bias\nof the group of betting individuals. Going just by number of individuals\n(or probably even by amount of currency risked) this seems like a futures\nmarket would inherently be a small and biased group. Potentially useful,\nbut I wouldn't assume that it could be taken stand-alone as a proxy for\nconsensus.\n\nI'm curious what you think about a coin-weighted poll like I suggested here\n\u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-May/019022.html\u003e\nbeing\nadded to that list of steps? Surely this would be a broader group of people\nthan a futures market, tho still obviously a group subject to selection\nbias.\n\n@jeremy drops the bomb. I'm sure Jorge will be running this within the\nyear.\n\n\n\nOn Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 12:25 PM Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Boker tov bitcoin devs,\n\u003e\n\u003e A mechanism of soft-forking against activation exists. What more do you\n\u003e\u003e want?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Agreed -- that should be enough.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Are we supposed to write the code on behalf of this hypothetical group of\n\u003e\u003e users who may or may not exist for them just so that they can have a node\n\u003e\u003e that remains stalled on Speedy Trial lockin?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e That simply isn't reasonable, but if you think it is, I invite you to\n\u003e\u003e create such a fork.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Disagree.\n\u003e\n\u003e It is a reasonable ask.\n\u003e\n\u003e I've done it in about 40 lines of python:\n\u003e https://github.com/jeremyrubin/forkd\n\u003e\n\u003e Merry Christmas Jorge, please vet the code carefully before running.\n\u003e\n\u003e Peace,\n\u003e\n\u003e Jeremy\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\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220316/0bf6deff/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "be456394cb4c1a4710bdbb6ac05d53753dd71eadadfb6f3cd96b2fee2acc93a3c6666975618c53cef80ff68ae16a21bdee7f3b30a84669accd1de55675da2836"
}