Published on: 2017-07-07T09:51:16+00:00
Shaolinfry's proposal for BIP8 aims to address the criticisms of BIP9's blocktime-based thresholds. These thresholds have been criticized for being confusing and vulnerable to miners manipulating timestamps. To solve this issue, Shaolinfry proposes using height-based thresholds instead. This would provide certainty at a given block height and be easier to monitor. The code and updated BIP text for BIP8 can be found on GitHub. Shaolinfry is open to amending BIP8 to be height-based if there is enough interest.In response to the proposal for gratuitous orphaning, Gregory Maxwell argues that it is reckless and coercive. He believes that changes in Bitcoin's design are necessary to ensure network security and reduce harm. However, he opposes character assassination and criticizes these changes. Maxwell suggests waiting until after BIP148 to continue the discussion, as more real-world information will be available. In response to Maxwell's objections, a new pull request has been opened with the parts he objects to removed. It remains to be seen if this version will be satisfactory.Jorge Timon expresses his preference for using height instead of time in BIP9 and suggests a simpler way to issue a warning to nodes that don't know an activated deployment. His proposal involves using a special bit in versionbits, which does not require adding consensus rules. Shaolinfry initially had concerns about the proposal but they were addressed by Timon. Luke Dashjr supports the idea of a mandatory signal before activation, as it serves as a wake-up call for miners who have not upgraded yet. He also states that it enables deploying softforks as a MASF and only upgrading them to UASF on an as-needed basis. On the other hand, Shaolinfry expresses skepticism towards requiring signaling before activation, as it could lead to gratuitous orphaning.Hampus questions the amendments to BIP8 and suggests making it into its own BIP or allowing for more flexibility in the LOCKED_IN state. Luke Dashjr explains that the mandatory signal is not pointless but serves as a wake-up call for miners who are not upgraded yet. He also believes that not having a mandatory signal was a serious bug in BIP9, which is fixed in BIP148. Shaolinfry proposes amending BIP8 to be height-based instead of block time-based. While height-based thresholds are hard to predict due to difficulty fluctuations, they provide certainty at a given block height and are easy to monitor. Luke Dashjr has already opened a pull request to fix issues with BIP9 and merge it with BIP8, awaiting shaolinfry's approval.Luke Dashjr proposes changes to BIP8 to address regression compared to BIP9 and to avoid activating suboptimal or flawed soft forks without hard forking. However, there are concerns about when this mechanism would be beneficial versus when it could cause harm. There is opposition to making a mandatory signal due to fears of monetary losses and network instability resulting from the resulting disruption. A proposal has been made to fix issues with BIP9, but there are concerns about proposals involving gratuitous orphaning being reckless and coercive.In a conversation between shaolinfry and Luke Dashjr, they discuss the use of signaling for activation in BIP9. Shaolinfry suggests an extra state to require signaling before activation, but Luke argues that miners can simply fake signal, making it pointless. However, Luke believes that not having a mandatory signal is a serious bug in BIP9, fixed in BIP148. He explains that the absence of a mandatory signal makes the activation decisive and unambiguous, and it enables deploying softforks as a MASF, upgrading them to UASF on an as-needed basis. Luke has opened a pull request to fix issues in BIP9 and merge it with BIP8, awaiting shaolinfry's approval. Additionally, shaolinfry proposes amending BIP8 to be height-based instead of block time-based if there is sufficient interest.Overall, there are ongoing discussions and proposals to address the criticisms of BIP9 and improve the activation thresholds for soft forks in Bitcoin. The focus is on finding a more reliable and transparent method that minimizes manipulation and confusion while ensuring network security.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T21:16:31.496877+00:00