Title: Voting results of BIPīs & Hard/Soft Forks Post by: sherblock on April 22, 2022, 07:41:41 PM Hello
where can i find the voting results of BIPīs and Hard/Soft-Forks? Thank you Title: Re: Voting results of BIPīs & Hard/Soft Forks Post by: achow101 on April 22, 2022, 08:44:06 PM You can't because no such vote exists. There is no vote for activating a soft fork. There isn't really an official specified process either.
You could scan the blockchain to observe the version number changes that signal for a fork to be deployed. However if you do that, you must remember that that is not a vote. Miners did not vote, and them signaling readiness in their blocks is not a vote. Miner signaling is a coordination mechanism deployed after there is sufficient evidence of consensus for a fork to be activated. Title: Re: Voting results of BIPīs & Hard/Soft Forks Post by: sherblock on April 23, 2022, 10:52:33 AM Ist there a way to see a transparent documented development process that led for example to the SegWit ubdate and the BCH hard fork?
Title: Re: Voting results of BIPīs & Hard/Soft Forks Post by: Wind_FURY on April 23, 2022, 01:00:17 PM Ist there a way to see a transparent documented development process that led for example to the SegWit ubdate and the BCH hard fork? What kind of document are you looking for? An "official document" saying that "this is what actually happened"? There's none, but Aaron Van Wirdum wrote this for Bitcoin Magazine, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/the-long-road-to-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality The people from the Bitcoin Cash community might say it's not the most objective/accurate article telling those events though. Title: Re: Voting results of BIP´s & Hard/Soft Forks Post by: sherblock on April 23, 2022, 05:33:03 PM Thank you for the link.
I am looking for something like this https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8149 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8149) Is this the maximum i can get when i want to know, who did when and what in the development process and what the pro/contra arguments were? Title: Re: Voting results of BIP´s & Hard/Soft Forks Post by: BlackHatCoiner on April 23, 2022, 08:12:03 PM Miner signaling is a coordination mechanism deployed after there is sufficient evidence of consensus for a fork to be activated. I'm confused.To reach consensus for the activation of a fork, there has to be signalling. Why isn't block header signal considered voting? Title: Re: Voting results of BIPīs & Hard/Soft Forks Post by: garlonicon on April 23, 2022, 08:41:36 PM Quote Why isn't block header signal considered voting? Because Bitcoin is not ruled by miners: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_is_not_ruled_by_minersAlso read Harmony and Discord: https://bitcointalk.org/dec/p1.html There are many groups. There are miners, there are users, there are developers, there are traders. All people using Bitcoin form a consensus. Signalling is not voting, just because not only miners decide, what is and what is not Bitcoin. If Bitcoin would be ruled by miners, then they could decide to for example get all coins and ignore all signatures. Or to increase block reward to 100 BTC ad infinitum. But they cannot. They could start signalling for such changes, but because signalling is not voting, those rules can be still rejected by non-miners. That's also the reason, why full nodes are so important. Title: Re: Voting results of BIPīs & Hard/Soft Forks Post by: BlackHatCoiner on April 24, 2022, 10:02:36 AM They could start signalling for such changes, but because signalling is not voting, those rules can be still rejected by non-miners. This is how I understand it:
Another example:
Title: Re: Voting results of BIPīs & Hard/Soft Forks Post by: sherblock on April 24, 2022, 03:39:27 PM You could get some information from bitcoin-dev mailing... Thank you....sufficient evidence of consensus... Is there an example for this?Title: Re: Voting results of BIPīs & Hard/Soft Forks Post by: Wind_FURY on April 27, 2022, 05:48:19 AM They could start signalling for such changes, but because signalling is not voting, those rules can be still rejected by non-miners. This is how I understand it:
Another example:
Everything in Bitcoin concerning consensus is, very complex. It can be debated that hashing power is a mechanism not for consensus, but a Sybil Attack protection mechanism. Plus there's also the UASF by shaolinfry, which has demonstrated that miner signalling have been used as a political tool by Jihan Wu, Roger Ver and their mining-cartel. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1805060.0 Title: Re: Voting results of BIPīs & Hard/Soft Forks Post by: NotATether on May 09, 2022, 05:33:05 AM Ist there a way to see a transparent documented development process that led for example to the SegWit ubdate and the BCH hard fork? The most official documentation about this is the BIPs themselves, particularly BIP148 (this describes the activation timeline for segwit) and BIPs 8-9 (these describe the actual signaling method for deployment). Title: Re: Voting results of BIPīs & Hard/Soft Forks Post by: pooya87 on May 09, 2022, 05:45:36 AM The most official documentation about this is the BIPs themselves, particularly BIP148 (this describes the activation timeline for segwit) and BIPs 8-9 (these describe the actual signaling method for deployment). BIP9 is the correct procedure to activate forks and this BIP or a similar alternative is always used for all the forks.BIP148 on the other hand is describing a very dangerous attack against bitcoin and its consensus reaching mechanism. It is basically saying that anybody can ignore what the majority of miners say and enforce any fork by rejecting valid blocks. Very similar to what bcash did, they ignored what the majority of miners (and nodes and the economy) and enforced their own rules creating a minority fork. |