📅 Original date posted:2016-10-17
📝 Original message:On Sunday, 16 October 2016 17:19:37 CEST Andrew C wrote:
> On 10/16/2016 4:58 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Lets get back to the topic. Having a longer fallow period is a simple
> > way to be safe. Your comments make me even more scared that safety is
> > not taken into account the way it would.
>
> Can you please explain how having a longer grace period makes it any
> safer? Once the fork reaches the LOCKED_IN status, the fork will become
> active after the period is over. How does having a longer grace period
> make this any safer besides just adding more waiting before it goes
> active?
As Marek wrote just minutes before your email came in; companies will not
roll out their updates until it locks in. Peter Todd says the same thing.
So your assumption that the lock-in time is the END of the upgrading is
false. Thats only the case for miners.
The entire point here is that SegWit is much bigger than just full nodes
(including miner).
An entire ecosystem of Bitconin will have a need to upgrade.
I understand people saying that non-miners don't *need* to upgrade in order
to avoid being kicked of the network, but truely, thats a bogus argument.
People want to actually participate in Bitcoin and that means they need to
understand all of it. Not just see anyone-can-spend transactions.
I think its rather odd to think that developers on this list can decide
the risk profile that Bitcoin using companies or individuals should have.
> You said something about rolling back the changes. There is no
> mechanism for roll backs, and the whole point of the soft fork
> signalling is such that there is no need to roll back anything because
> miners have signaled that they are supporting the fork.
There are a bunch of really large assumptions in there that I disagree with.
First of all, miners running the latest software doesn't mean the software
is free from flaws. Everyone makes mistakes. People that see a way to abuse
the system may have found things and are not reporting it because they want
to abuse the flaw for their own gains. Which is exactly what happened with
Etherium.
The amount of code and the amount of changes in SegWit makes this a very
dangerous change in (of?) Bitcoin. I counted 10 core concepts in Bitcoin
being changed with it. We don't yet know how they will interact. We can’t.
You are asking people to create everyone-can-spend transactions that would
mean a loss of funds to everyone that used it if we do find a major flaw and
need to rollback.
The gamble is rather uncomforable to many...
--
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
Tom Zander [ARCHIVE] /
npub1mj…dxnq7
2023-06-07 17:54:05
in reply to nevent1q…ngyd
Author Public Key
npub1mju50kqcm07heu967fkq6h4kq666xgekc4yrldf7q52xx9vr8jnsrdxnq7Published at
2023-06-07 17:54:05Event JSON
{
"id": "6217d95884af6da4f553cbaed4998c87c040126c179dc0c7bdf4689cf48271b2",
"pubkey": "dcb947d818dbfd7cf0baf26c0d5eb606b5a32336c5483fb53e05146315833ca7",
"created_at": 1686160445,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"013851964e0006d489daca620e14c7c6c63358b79bff34620f9703c31bcdc761",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"c4cdd6f536140abb016d0329dca3b641ca99a5b2710947621e4f4f357e74034a",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"66324b80c9be77f480ea12dac2a008c3ce202b4779044ab53cf93d738403b383"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-10-17\n📝 Original message:On Sunday, 16 October 2016 17:19:37 CEST Andrew C wrote:\n\u003e On 10/16/2016 4:58 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Lets get back to the topic. Having a longer fallow period is a simple\n\u003e \u003e way to be safe. Your comments make me even more scared that safety is\n\u003e \u003e not taken into account the way it would.\n\u003e \n\u003e Can you please explain how having a longer grace period makes it any\n\u003e safer? Once the fork reaches the LOCKED_IN status, the fork will become\n\u003e active after the period is over. How does having a longer grace period\n\u003e make this any safer besides just adding more waiting before it goes\n\u003e active? \n\nAs Marek wrote just minutes before your email came in; companies will not \nroll out their updates until it locks in. Peter Todd says the same thing.\nSo your assumption that the lock-in time is the END of the upgrading is \nfalse. Thats only the case for miners.\n\nThe entire point here is that SegWit is much bigger than just full nodes \n(including miner).\nAn entire ecosystem of Bitconin will have a need to upgrade.\n\nI understand people saying that non-miners don't *need* to upgrade in order \nto avoid being kicked of the network, but truely, thats a bogus argument.\n\nPeople want to actually participate in Bitcoin and that means they need to \nunderstand all of it. Not just see anyone-can-spend transactions.\nI think its rather odd to think that developers on this list can decide\nthe risk profile that Bitcoin using companies or individuals should have.\n\n\n\u003e You said something about rolling back the changes. There is no\n\u003e mechanism for roll backs, and the whole point of the soft fork\n\u003e signalling is such that there is no need to roll back anything because\n\u003e miners have signaled that they are supporting the fork.\n\nThere are a bunch of really large assumptions in there that I disagree with.\nFirst of all, miners running the latest software doesn't mean the software \nis free from flaws. Everyone makes mistakes. People that see a way to abuse \nthe system may have found things and are not reporting it because they want \nto abuse the flaw for their own gains. Which is exactly what happened with \nEtherium.\n\nThe amount of code and the amount of changes in SegWit makes this a very \ndangerous change in (of?) Bitcoin. I counted 10 core concepts in Bitcoin \nbeing changed with it. We don't yet know how they will interact. We can’t.\n\nYou are asking people to create everyone-can-spend transactions that would \nmean a loss of funds to everyone that used it if we do find a major flaw and \nneed to rollback.\n\nThe gamble is rather uncomforable to many...\n-- \nTom Zander\nBlog: https://zander.github.io\nVlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel",
"sig": "335071d6f577c468820d5153165dda814241fc250928e0443ea2854efdf417a1d742a1686dc16aa50126fca9ca506f6cbaef254492599fe3868dd328436e568c"
}