📅 Original date posted:2019-03-11
📝 Original message:Hi Jacob,
> Huh?! The whole point of non-standardness in this context is to (a) make
>>> soft-forking something out safer by derisking miners not upgrading right
>>> away and (b) signal something that may be a candidate for soft-forking
>>> out so that we get feedback. Who is getting things disabled who isn't
>>> bothering to *tell* people that their use-case is being hurt?!
>>>
>>
>> People have told me that they are hurt by some other non-standardness
>> changes and I understand that they have been sitting on those funds for
>> years. Maybe they don't realize their is some place to complain or maybe
>> they think there must be a good reason why they are not allowed to do what
>> they were previously allowed to do. Perhaps others don't want to risk
>> blowing their pseudonymity. Perhaps they think that attempting to undo
>> some of these non-standardness changes is futile. I can bring up the
>> specific cases I've encountered in a new thread if you think it is
>> worthwhile.
>>
>
> Like Matt, I understand non-standardness to be specifically for making a
> transaction type more difficult to set the stage for a future disabling.
>
> If anyone is actually harmed by this change, let them at least speak up
> pseudonymously as others have before. Backwards compatibility shouldn't
> mean letting imaginary implausible cases veto net-beneficial changes.
>
It is so easy to say stuff like this when one's own money isn't what is at
risk.
While I encourage users who would be harmed to chime in if they can,
unfortunately, I think it is mostly wishful thinking on our part that they
necessarily would. In fact, there is evidence that in practice people
don't.
To illustrate this, consider the example of the people affected by PR #5247
<https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5247>;, which makes unparsable
public keys non-standard. As far as I am aware none have commented on this
mailing list about it yet even though I happen to know such people do exist
because I've talked with them on Slack. I believe the person I spoke with
to took over a year (and probably more than two years) to even notice that
the transactions they want to redeem with are no longer standard. To be
fair, their money that is stuck due to PR #5247 isn't lost yet, but I'm
skeptical they would think or know to speak up here even if their money was
on the chopping block. The fact that they haven't been able to move their
money in the last *4 years* doesn't mean they wouldn't like it back one day.
While non-standardness is a helpful in dissuading users from committing new
funds to OP_CODESEPARATOR scripts, it doesn't do anything to help users
that may have been caught unaware by the non-standardness change.
Furthermore, because these transactions are non-standard, anyone caught off
guard by the change is going to have a very hard time redeeming their
funds, as we have already seen with PR #5247, a non-standardness change
that is far older than the OP_CODESERPATOR change in PR #11423
<https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11423>;.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20190311/4722d88f/attachment-0001.html>;
Russell O'Connor [ARCHIVE] /
npub1dw…8plrw
2023-06-07 18:16:47
in reply to nevent1q…8z3s
Author Public Key
npub1dw88wd5gqsqn6ufxhf9h03uk8087l7gfzdtez5csjlt6pupu4pwsj8plrwPublished at
2023-06-07 18:16:47Event JSON
{
"id": "2c350a7a28683cfdd16d9d05e90f8bb7d340700000d122573ccbcf1287f42d1e",
"pubkey": "6b8e77368804013d7126ba4b77c7963bcfeff909135791531097d7a0f03ca85d",
"created_at": 1686161807,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"7188eca60b9414cacad9227d1078e0289be7e78addd56515606897419bb2cf43",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"3c7ff908a81186111ae1476c2aed337dd00561caa227e8873e089e53de742b63",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"dfc3b86290d962b72921536f7e3b66c03742b85abc914447a90507cc27ff8a4b"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2019-03-11\n📝 Original message:Hi Jacob,\n\n\n\u003e Huh?! The whole point of non-standardness in this context is to (a) make\n\u003e\u003e\u003e soft-forking something out safer by derisking miners not upgrading right\n\u003e\u003e\u003e away and (b) signal something that may be a candidate for soft-forking\n\u003e\u003e\u003e out so that we get feedback. Who is getting things disabled who isn't\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bothering to *tell* people that their use-case is being hurt?!\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e People have told me that they are hurt by some other non-standardness\n\u003e\u003e changes and I understand that they have been sitting on those funds for\n\u003e\u003e years. Maybe they don't realize their is some place to complain or maybe\n\u003e\u003e they think there must be a good reason why they are not allowed to do what\n\u003e\u003e they were previously allowed to do. Perhaps others don't want to risk\n\u003e\u003e blowing their pseudonymity. Perhaps they think that attempting to undo\n\u003e\u003e some of these non-standardness changes is futile. I can bring up the\n\u003e\u003e specific cases I've encountered in a new thread if you think it is\n\u003e\u003e worthwhile.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Like Matt, I understand non-standardness to be specifically for making a\n\u003e transaction type more difficult to set the stage for a future disabling.\n\u003e\n\u003e If anyone is actually harmed by this change, let them at least speak up\n\u003e pseudonymously as others have before. Backwards compatibility shouldn't\n\u003e mean letting imaginary implausible cases veto net-beneficial changes.\n\u003e\n\nIt is so easy to say stuff like this when one's own money isn't what is at\nrisk.\n\nWhile I encourage users who would be harmed to chime in if they can,\nunfortunately, I think it is mostly wishful thinking on our part that they\nnecessarily would. In fact, there is evidence that in practice people\ndon't.\n\nTo illustrate this, consider the example of the people affected by PR #5247\n\u003chttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5247\u003e, which makes unparsable\npublic keys non-standard. As far as I am aware none have commented on this\nmailing list about it yet even though I happen to know such people do exist\nbecause I've talked with them on Slack. I believe the person I spoke with\nto took over a year (and probably more than two years) to even notice that\nthe transactions they want to redeem with are no longer standard. To be\nfair, their money that is stuck due to PR #5247 isn't lost yet, but I'm\nskeptical they would think or know to speak up here even if their money was\non the chopping block. The fact that they haven't been able to move their\nmoney in the last *4 years* doesn't mean they wouldn't like it back one day.\n\nWhile non-standardness is a helpful in dissuading users from committing new\nfunds to OP_CODESEPARATOR scripts, it doesn't do anything to help users\nthat may have been caught unaware by the non-standardness change.\nFurthermore, because these transactions are non-standard, anyone caught off\nguard by the change is going to have a very hard time redeeming their\nfunds, as we have already seen with PR #5247, a non-standardness change\nthat is far older than the OP_CODESERPATOR change in PR #11423\n\u003chttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11423\u003e.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20190311/4722d88f/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "cc479b0cb5619098230ead49ffabb69c5e120be1dae9066febc4b15a41d395ccd8ed8a8001f9871da1175c8ac4dc5236b5df04485c1a87a400f4c04acd7bc4eb"
}