📅 Original date posted:2017-04-14
📝 Original message:I do not support the BIP148 UASF for some of the same reasons that I
do support segwit: Bitcoin is valuable in part because it has high
security and stability, segwit was carefully designed to support and
amplify that engineering integrity that people can count on now and
into the future.
I do not feel the the approach proposed in BIP148 really measures up
to the standard set by segwit itself, or the existing best practices
in protocol development in this community.
The primary flaw in BIP148 is that by forcing the activation of the
existing (non-UASF segwit) nodes it almost guarantees at a minor level
of disruption.
Segwit was carefully engineered so that older unmodified miners could
continue operating _completely_ without interruption after segwit
activates.
Older nodes will not include segwit spends, and so their blocks will
not be invalid even if they do not have segwit support. They can
upgrade to it on their own schedule. The only risk non-participating
miners take after segwit activation is that if someone else mines an
invalid block they would extend it, a risk many miners already
frequently take with spy-mining.
I do not think it is a horrible proposal: it is better engineered than
many things that many altcoins do, but just not up to our normal
standards. I respect the motivations of the authors of BIP 148. If
your goal is the fastest possible segwit activation then it is very
useful to exploit the >80% of existing nodes that already support the
original version of segwit.
But the fastest support should not be our goal, as a community-- there
is always some reckless altcoin or centralized system that can support
something faster than we can-- trying to match that would only erode
our distinguishing value in being well engineered and stable.
"First do no harm." We should use the least disruptive mechanisms
available, and the BIP148 proposal does not meet that test. To hear
some people-- non-developers on reddit and such-- a few even see the
forced orphaning of 148 as a virtue, that it's punitive for
misbehaving miners. I could not not disagree with that perspective any
more strongly.
Of course, I do not oppose the general concept of a UASF but
_generally_ a soft-fork (of any kind) does not need to risk disruption
of mining, just as segwit's activation does not. UASF are the
original kind of soft-fork and were the only kind of fork practiced by
Satoshi. P2SH was activated based on a date, and all prior ones were
based on times or heights. We introduced miner based activation as
part of a process of making Bitcoin more stable in the common case
where the ecosystem is all in harmony. It's kind of weird to see UASF
portrayed as something new.
It's important the users not be at the mercy of any one part of the
ecosystem to the extent that we can avoid it-- be it developers,
exchanges, chat forums, or mining hardware makers. Ultimately the
rules of Bitcoin work because they're enforced by the users
collectively-- that is what makes Bitcoin Bitcoin, it's what makes it
something people can count on: the rules aren't easy to just change.
There have been some other UASF proposals that avoid the forced
disruption-- by just defining a new witness bit and allowing
non-upgraded-to-uasf miners and nodes to continue as non-upgraded, I
think they are vastly superior. They would be slower to deploy, but I
do not think that is a flaw.
We should have patience. Bitcoin is a system that should last for all
ages and power mankind for a long time-- ten years from now a couple
years of dispute will seem like nothing. But the reputation we earn
for stability and integrity, for being a system of money people can
count on will mean everything.
If these discussions come up, they'll come up in the form of reminding
people that Bitcoin isn't easily changed at a whim, even when the
whims are obviously good, and how that protects it from being managed
like all the competing systems of money that the world used to use
were managed. :)
So have patience, don't take short cuts. Segwit is a good improvement
and we should respect it by knowing that it's good enough to wait for,
and for however its activated to be done the best way we know how.
Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1f2…crwet
2023-06-07 18:00:02
in reply to nevent1q…5m0t
Author Public Key
npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetPublished at
2023-06-07 18:00:02Event JSON
{
"id": "e63d95ee5cfdd1e149db74de10a7d71e096f9af818927b6d4aa72d282d205b1f",
"pubkey": "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73",
"created_at": 1686160802,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5d1e64c970da07b0178aa4b0869114a6c0b54023e99bc79f83d180601afc646b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a23dbf6c6cc83e14cc3df4e56cc71845f611908084cfe620e83e40c06ccdd3d0"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-04-14\n📝 Original message:I do not support the BIP148 UASF for some of the same reasons that I\ndo support segwit: Bitcoin is valuable in part because it has high\nsecurity and stability, segwit was carefully designed to support and\namplify that engineering integrity that people can count on now and\ninto the future.\n\nI do not feel the the approach proposed in BIP148 really measures up\nto the standard set by segwit itself, or the existing best practices\nin protocol development in this community.\n\nThe primary flaw in BIP148 is that by forcing the activation of the\nexisting (non-UASF segwit) nodes it almost guarantees at a minor level\nof disruption.\n\nSegwit was carefully engineered so that older unmodified miners could\ncontinue operating _completely_ without interruption after segwit\nactivates.\n\nOlder nodes will not include segwit spends, and so their blocks will\nnot be invalid even if they do not have segwit support. They can\nupgrade to it on their own schedule. The only risk non-participating\nminers take after segwit activation is that if someone else mines an\ninvalid block they would extend it, a risk many miners already\nfrequently take with spy-mining.\n\nI do not think it is a horrible proposal: it is better engineered than\nmany things that many altcoins do, but just not up to our normal\nstandards. I respect the motivations of the authors of BIP 148. If\nyour goal is the fastest possible segwit activation then it is very\nuseful to exploit the \u003e80% of existing nodes that already support the\noriginal version of segwit.\n\nBut the fastest support should not be our goal, as a community-- there\nis always some reckless altcoin or centralized system that can support\nsomething faster than we can-- trying to match that would only erode\nour distinguishing value in being well engineered and stable.\n\n\"First do no harm.\" We should use the least disruptive mechanisms\navailable, and the BIP148 proposal does not meet that test. To hear\nsome people-- non-developers on reddit and such-- a few even see the\nforced orphaning of 148 as a virtue, that it's punitive for\nmisbehaving miners. I could not not disagree with that perspective any\nmore strongly.\n\nOf course, I do not oppose the general concept of a UASF but\n_generally_ a soft-fork (of any kind) does not need to risk disruption\nof mining, just as segwit's activation does not. UASF are the\noriginal kind of soft-fork and were the only kind of fork practiced by\nSatoshi. P2SH was activated based on a date, and all prior ones were\nbased on times or heights. We introduced miner based activation as\npart of a process of making Bitcoin more stable in the common case\nwhere the ecosystem is all in harmony. It's kind of weird to see UASF\nportrayed as something new.\n\nIt's important the users not be at the mercy of any one part of the\necosystem to the extent that we can avoid it-- be it developers,\nexchanges, chat forums, or mining hardware makers. Ultimately the\nrules of Bitcoin work because they're enforced by the users\ncollectively-- that is what makes Bitcoin Bitcoin, it's what makes it\nsomething people can count on: the rules aren't easy to just change.\n\nThere have been some other UASF proposals that avoid the forced\ndisruption-- by just defining a new witness bit and allowing\nnon-upgraded-to-uasf miners and nodes to continue as non-upgraded, I\nthink they are vastly superior. They would be slower to deploy, but I\ndo not think that is a flaw.\n\nWe should have patience. Bitcoin is a system that should last for all\nages and power mankind for a long time-- ten years from now a couple\nyears of dispute will seem like nothing. But the reputation we earn\nfor stability and integrity, for being a system of money people can\ncount on will mean everything.\n\nIf these discussions come up, they'll come up in the form of reminding\npeople that Bitcoin isn't easily changed at a whim, even when the\nwhims are obviously good, and how that protects it from being managed\nlike all the competing systems of money that the world used to use\nwere managed. :)\n\nSo have patience, don't take short cuts. Segwit is a good improvement\nand we should respect it by knowing that it's good enough to wait for,\nand for however its activated to be done the best way we know how.",
"sig": "2585bc452c7e5272a15a9017bf7f19b47bbafe785e557c5f4099d4a57ac14d35eb06d4a3447f3dfab26d25e465d93c7b0f91d95e6a8edbd94b7230a99ec0e51b"
}