Published on: 2022-04-27T02:35:49+00:00
In the ongoing discussion within the Bitcoin community, consensus-building methods are being evaluated. Some propose setting specific criteria for determining consensus and involving non-developer stakeholders in the decision-making process. Ideas such as wallet votes and coin-weighted polling are being considered, but concerns about centralization pressures have been raised.On the technical side, there are questions regarding how nodes decide which blocks to orphan when only some of them need to signal. It has been clarified that in a semi-mandatory signaling system like BIP8, only "threshold" blocks are required to signal. If only a small percentage of miners fail to signal and the threshold is set high enough, no blocks will be orphaned. However, if any block would cause the entire threshold period to fail, it will be orphaned.The debate on whether miners or users should lead in decision-making continues, with the agreement that users ultimately lead and miners need to be prepared to upgrade their software. The concept of "evil" forks and the defense of Bitcoin against them is questioned, as defending against a fallacy of reification is not necessary. Systematically measuring user consensus without resorting to gaming the system or centralization is deemed challenging.Discussions between Anthony Towns and Jorge Timón delve into the advantages and disadvantages of bip8 and speedy trial. Towns argues that bip8 is not superior to speedy trial for activating bad soft forks, while Timón emphasizes the importance of considering user resistance. Keagan also points out that bip8 lacks mandatory signaling during the lock-in period, which makes it more difficult to counter a soft fork.Email exchanges between Towns and Timón further explore the topic of bip8 activation for bad soft forks. Towns maintains that bip8 is never superior to speedy trial, except when miners correctly identify a bad fork. Timón expresses frustration at feeling ignored, leading to the abrupt end of the conversation.The conversation expands to include other participants, discussing scenarios where bip8 fails compared to speedy trial. Timón presents hypothetical situations where bip8 with lot=true would activate an evil fork while speedy trial would block it. Towns argues that bip8 is designed for activating good proposals and that flawed ones should be stopped during the review process. The discussion becomes confrontational, with Timón accusing Towns of not understanding his points. Despite attempts at resolution, the conversation ends with Timón deciding to cease communication on the matter.Pushd raises concerns about the misconception that Bitcoin soft fork upgrades are decided by a majority vote of miners. They argue that this misunderstanding has been misused by mining pools in the past and creates a contentious environment. Billy Tetrud disagrees, suggesting that the solution lies in better explaining speedy trial to those who misunderstand it. Pushd counters by listing the downsides of this misunderstanding, including wasted time during the signaling period and giving miners an advantage over economic nodes. The need to address misconceptions and improve the understanding of soft fork activation mechanisms is emphasized.The discussion continues with a debate over whether changing the design or improving explanations is the solution to address the misconceptions. Different viewpoints are presented, with some advocating for a better activation method like BIP8/LOT=TRUE, while others argue for persistent explanation. The downsides of the current system, such as wasted time during signaling and the perception of voting, are highlighted. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of understanding the nuances of soft fork activation and finding ways to address any misconceptions.In a recent discussion on the bitcoin-dev mailing list, there is a debate about whether bitcoin upgrades are made based on miners' votes. While some argue that miners should have the power to approve changes, others believe that the confusion surrounding miner signaling and voting needs to be addressed through better explanations.The conversation explores different activation methods, including BIP 8/LOT=TRUE, which is seen as a simpler alternative. However, there are concerns about changing how Bitcoin is engineered for the sake of optics. Instead, it is suggested that explaining the speedy trial process more clearly can help prevent misunderstandings.The flaws in the speedy trial narrative are discussed, with concerns that it can mislead users into thinking that miner signaling is how Bitcoin upgrades are voted in. It is noted that flawed proposals making it through activation is a failure of the review process. The percentage of supermajority hashpower is decided by Bitcoin core developers, who can choose not to follow old or new consensus rules at any time.The conversation also touches on hypothetical scenarios, where someone being able to block a change is undesirable and could harm bitcoin. There is disagreement on whether solutions should allow blocking an evil fork, as it could also be used to block a good fork. The importance of rejecting bad premises and focusing on reasonable discussions is emphasized.In another thread, participants express their preferences for BIP 8's LOT parameter, citing its benefits of giving more power to users and reducing politics and controversies.
Updated on: 2023-08-02T05:53:16.831910+00:00