Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2022, 09:31:01 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 23.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Moving towards user activated soft fork activation  (Read 24270 times)
hv_
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2422
Merit: 1054

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
April 13, 2017, 10:29:03 AM
 #201

Cool. I feel fully convinced now. Lots of stringent proofs every line...
Thx for such a deep dive into UASF suporter minds.

Ok so you DO need explanation why patenting mining technology is pro-centralization, no problem:

When granted a patent in China, the patent-holder has monopoly on using his advantage.
In this case that advantage  is 30% lower power consumption while mining.

Since miners already operate on tiny profit margin, and power is major part of mining operation (the reason why we use ASICs, not just FPGA or GPU or CPU) - therefore everyone who is denied this technology has little chance of being a miner.

As a result, one entity - the patent holder - can pick companies he will allow to operate that way - making him the central point of power in the network.

Clearer now?



No - and yes.

All profitable business will lead to centralization. No matter what you try to create around or artificial regulate.

The only true bitcoin free market open source way is: think big and free and play the game - the good will survive.


Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Fix real world issues: Check out b-vote.com
The simple way is the genius way - Satoshi's Rules: humana veris _
1670275861
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1670275861

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1670275861
Reply with quote  #2

1670275861
Report to moderator
If you want to be a moderator, report many posts with accuracy. You will be noticed.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1670275861
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1670275861

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1670275861
Reply with quote  #2

1670275861
Report to moderator
classicsucks
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 504


View Profile
April 13, 2017, 05:31:44 PM
 #202

So Maxwell is suddenly doing interviews coming out as pro-UASF now: http://www.coindesk.com/asicboost-uasf-greg-maxwell-bitcoins-path-forward/

Quote
"Ultimately, I think if we had a crystal ball and could get anything we wanted, we'd want to use UASFs always."

Oh, and did Blockstream really just hire Samson Mao to be chief strategist? http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-hires-ex-btcc-exec-global-market-push/

My favorite is the UASF camo baseball hats... "Break out your flags, boys, it's time to giter dun."

Wow, just wow.
piotr_n
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2054
Merit: 1308


aka tonikt


View Profile WWW
April 13, 2017, 05:56:04 PM
 #203

So Maxwell is suddenly doing interviews coming out as pro-UASF now: http://www.coindesk.com/asicboost-uasf-greg-maxwell-bitcoins-path-forward/

Quote
"Ultimately, I think if we had a crystal ball and could get anything we wanted, we'd want to use UASFs always."

Oh, and did Blockstream really just hire Samson Mao to be chief strategist? http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-hires-ex-btcc-exec-global-market-push/

My favorite is the UASF camo baseball hats... "Break out your flags, boys, it's time to giter dun."

Wow, just wow.

It's interesting news indeed.

I'm guessing he has done the reading.
Now he knows enough to be able to crack the Satoshi's system of the consensus guarded by the miners... Wink

Check out gocoin - my original project of full bitcoin node & cold wallet written in Go.
PGP fingerprint: AB9E A551 E262 A87A 13BB  9059 1BE7 B545 CDF3 FD0E
piotr_n
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2054
Merit: 1308


aka tonikt


View Profile WWW
April 13, 2017, 06:06:07 PM
 #204

I think all these people would be making much less fools of themselves, if they just suggested to change the 95% into 55%.

Although, considering that they would still be half short then, I can understand why some try to reach for a crazy ideas.

Check out gocoin - my original project of full bitcoin node & cold wallet written in Go.
PGP fingerprint: AB9E A551 E262 A87A 13BB  9059 1BE7 B545 CDF3 FD0E
hv_
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2422
Merit: 1054

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
April 13, 2017, 06:11:41 PM
 #205

I think all these people would be making much less fools of themselves, if they just suggested to change the 95% into 55%.

Although, considering that they would still be half short then, I can understand why some try to reach for a crazy ideas.

Ohh, I m good at that.  Lets try this

BIP 0815:  Get rid of miners... Hm... Let full nodes do the mining ... Mehhhhh? Deja vu?

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Fix real world issues: Check out b-vote.com
The simple way is the genius way - Satoshi's Rules: humana veris _
classicsucks
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 504


View Profile
April 13, 2017, 06:17:21 PM
 #206

So Maxwell is suddenly doing interviews coming out as pro-UASF now: http://www.coindesk.com/asicboost-uasf-greg-maxwell-bitcoins-path-forward/

Quote
"Ultimately, I think if we had a crystal ball and could get anything we wanted, we'd want to use UASFs always."

Oh, and did Blockstream really just hire Samson Mao to be chief strategist? http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-hires-ex-btcc-exec-global-market-push/

My favorite is the UASF camo baseball hats... "Break out your flags, boys, it's time to giter dun."

Wow, just wow.

It's interesting news indeed.

I'm guessing he has done the reading.
Now he knows enough to be able to crack the Satoshi's system of the consensus guarded by the miners... Wink


I'm really shocked at Maxwell, this eclipses even his worst prior trolling attempts. Good job humbling him. He is now venturing into the "delusional and stupid" realm. I suppose he and his minions can write more code that won't ever get adopted by a majority... at some point I will be concerned that all of this crap code running simultaneously will break something, however.

Lorilikes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672
Merit: 251


Content| Press Releases | Articles | Strategy


View Profile
April 14, 2017, 03:30:06 AM
 #207

Some thoughts about the activation mechanism for soft forks. In the past we used IsSuperMajority and currently use BIP9 as soft fork activation methods, where a supermajority of hashrate triggers nodes to begin enforcing new rules. Hashrate based activation is convenient because it is the simplest and most straightforward process. While convenient there are a number limitations with this method.

Firstly, it requires trusting the hash power will validate after activation. The BIP66 soft fork was a case where 95% of the hashrate was signaling readiness but in reality about half was not actually validating the upgraded rules and mined upon an invalid block by mistake[1].

Secondly, miner signalling has a natural veto which allows a small percentage of hashrate to veto node activation of the upgrade for everyone. To date, soft forks have taken advantage of the relatively centralised mining landscape where there are relatively few mining pools building valid blocks; as we move towards more hashrate decentralization, it's likely that we will suffer more and more from "upgrade inertia" which will veto most upgrades.

Upgrade inertia in inevitable for widely deployed software and can be seen for example, with Microsoft Windows. At the time of writing 5.72% of all Microsoft Windows installations are still running Windows XP, despite mainstream support ending in 2009 and being superseded by 4 software generations, Vista, 7, 8 and 10.

Thirdly, the signaling methodology is widely misinterpreted to mean the hash power is voting on a proposal and it seems difficult to correct this misunderstanding in the wider community. The hash powers' role is to select valid transactions, and to extend the blockchain with valid blocks. Fully validating economic nodes ensure that blocks are valid. Nodes therefore define validity according to the software they run, but miners decide what already valid transactions gets included in the block chain.

As such, soft forks rules are actually always enforced by the nodes, not the miners. Miners of course can opt-out by simply not including transactions that use the new soft fork feature, but they cannot produce blocks that are invalid to the soft fork. The P2SH soft fork is a good example of this, where non-upgraded miners would see P2SH as spendable without a signature and consider them valid. If such an transaction were to be included in a block, the block would be invalid and the miner would lose the block reward and fees.

So-called "censorship" soft forks do not require nodes to opt in, because >51% of the hash power already have the ability to orphan blocks that contain transactions they have blacklisted. Since this is not a change in validity, nodes will accept the censored block chain automatically.

The fourth problem with supermajority hash power signaling is it draws unnecessary attention to miners which can become unnecessarily political. Already misunderstood as a vote, miners may feel pressure to "make a decision" on behalf of the community: who is and isn't signalling becomes a huge public focus and may put pressures onto miners they are unprepared for. Some miners may not be in a position to upgrade, or may prefer not to participate in the soft fork which is their right. However, that miner may now become a lone reason that vetoes activation for everyone, where the soft fork is an opt-in feature! This situation seems to be against the voluntary nature of the Bitcoin system where participation at all levels is voluntary and kept honest by well balanced incentives.

Since miners already have the protocol level right to select whatever transaction they prefer (and not mine those they don't), it would be better if a miner could chose to not participate in triggering activation of something they won't use, but, without being a veto to the process (and all the ire they may have to experience as a consequence).

The alternative discussed here is "flag day activation" where nodes begin enforcement at a predetermined time in the future. This method needs a longer lead time than a hash power based activation trigger, but offers a number of advantages and perhaps provides a better tradeoff.

Soft forks are still entirely optional to use post activation. For example, with P2SH, many participants in the Bitcoin ecosystem still do not use P2SH. Only 11% of bitcoins[2] are stored in P2SH addresses at the time of writing. Miners are free to not mine P2SH transactions, however, the incentives are such that miners should still validate transactions so they don't accidentally include invalid transactions and cause their block to be rejected. As an additional safety measure for well designed soft forks, relay policy rules prevent non-standard and invalid transactions from being relayed and mined by default; a miner would have to purposefully mine an invalid transaction, which is against their own economic interest.

Since the incentives of the Bitcoin system rely on self validation, economic nodes (miners and users) should always remain safe by ensuring their nodes either validate the current rules, or, they can place their network behind a full node that will filter out invalid transactions and blocks at the edge of their network (so called firewall or border nodes).

A user activated soft fork is permissive. Miners do not have to produce new version blocks and non-upgraded miners' blocks will not be orphaned as was the case with IsSuperMajority soft forks (e.g. BIP34, BIP66, BIP65-CLTV) which made it a compulsory upgrade for miners.

BIP9 "versionbits" soft fork activation method is also permissive in so far as non-upgraded miners are not forced to upgrade after activation because their blocks wont be orphaned. A recent case was the "CSV" soft fork that activated BIP68, BIP112 and BIP113. As such, the CSV soft fork allows non-upgraded miners to continue mining so long as they didn't produce invalid blocks.

Miners always retain discretion on which transactions to mine. However, regardless of whether they actively include transactions using the new soft fork feature, or not, the incentive for hash power to upgrade in order to validate is strong: if they do not, they could be vulnerable to a rogue miner willing to waste 12.5BTC to create an invalid block, which may cause non-validating miners to build on an invalid chain similar to the BIP66 incident. Validation has always had a strong requirement.

A user activated soft fork is win-win because it adds an option that some people want that does not detract from other peoples' enjoyment. Even if only 10% of users ever wanted a feature, so long as the benefit outweighed the technical risks, it would not be rational to deny others the ability to opt-in.

My suggestion is to have the best of both worlds. Since a user activated soft fork needs a relatively long lead time before activation, we can combine with BIP9 to give the option of a faster hash power coordinated activation or activation by flag day, whichever is the sooner. In both cases, we can leverage the warning systems in BIP9. The change is relatively simple, adding an activation-time parameter which will transition the BIP9 state to LOCKED_IN before the end of the BIP9 deployment timeout.

You can find the proposal here https://gist.github.com/shaolinfry/0f7d1fd22743bb966da0c0b1682ea2ab

References:

[1]: https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2015-07-04-spv-mining
[2]: http://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/p2sh-statistics?from=1472043312917&to=1488030912918




Wow I got the chills with every paragraph.  Great mind.  Great read.
Worth a look. Truly!

Ask Me About Press Releases and Content Creation
★▃ ▂⭐️▂ ▃ ▅ ▆⭐️▆ ▅ ▃ ▂⭐️▂ ▃★
 
★▃ ▂⭐️⭐️▂ ▃ ★✨
✨★▃ ▂⭐️▂ ▃ ▅ ▆⭐️▆ ▅ ▃ ▂⭐️▂ ▃ ★✨

⭐️▂ ▃ ▅ ▆⭐️▆ ▅ ▃ ▂⭐️

★▃ ▂⭐️▂ ▃ ▅ ▆⭐️▆ ▅ ▃ ▂⭐️▂ ▃★

⭐️▂ ▃ ▅ ▆⭐️▆ ▅ ▃ ▂⭐️
xyzzy099
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1057
Merit: 1030



View Profile
April 14, 2017, 02:57:25 PM
 #208

So Maxwell is suddenly doing interviews coming out as pro-UASF now: http://www.coindesk.com/asicboost-uasf-greg-maxwell-bitcoins-path-forward/

Quote
"Ultimately, I think if we had a crystal ball and could get anything we wanted, we'd want to use UASFs always."

Oh, and did Blockstream really just hire Samson Mao to be chief strategist? http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-hires-ex-btcc-exec-global-market-push/

My favorite is the UASF camo baseball hats... "Break out your flags, boys, it's time to giter dun."

Wow, just wow.

It's interesting news indeed.

I'm guessing he has done the reading.
Now he knows enough to be able to crack the Satoshi's system of the consensus guarded by the miners... Wink


I'm really shocked at Maxwell, this eclipses even his worst prior trolling attempts. Good job humbling him. He is now venturing into the "delusional and stupid" realm. I suppose he and his minions can write more code that won't ever get adopted by a majority... at some point I will be concerned that all of this crap code running simultaneously will break something, however.



In case you are interested, Greg clarifies his position greatly in this post to the developer mailing list:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/014152.html

Quote
I do not support the BIP148 UASF for some of the same reasons that I
do support segwit:  Bitcoin is valuable in part because it has high
security and stability, segwit was carefully designed to support and
amplify that engineering integrity that people can count on now and
into the future.

I do not feel the the approach proposed in BIP148 really measures up
to the standard set by segwit itself, or the existing best practices
in protocol development in this community.

The primary flaw in BIP148 is that by forcing the activation of the
existing (non-UASF segwit) nodes it almost guarantees at a minor level
of disruption.

Segwit was carefully engineered so that older unmodified miners could
continue operating _completely_ without interruption after segwit
activates.

Older nodes will not include segwit spends, and so their blocks will
not be invalid even if they do not have segwit support. They can
upgrade to it on their own schedule. The only risk non-participating
miners take after segwit activation is that if someone else mines an
invalid block they would extend it, a risk many miners already
frequently take with spy-mining.

I do not think it is a horrible proposal: it is better engineered than
many things that many altcoins do, but just not up to our normal
standards. I respect the motivations of the authors of BIP 148.  If
your goal is the fastest possible segwit activation then it is very
useful to exploit the >80% of existing nodes that already support the
original version of segwit.

But the fastest support should not be our goal, as a community-- there
is always some reckless altcoin or centralized system that can support
something faster than we can-- trying to match that would only erode
our distinguishing value in being well engineered and stable.

"First do no harm." We should use the least disruptive mechanisms
available, and the BIP148 proposal does not meet that test.  To hear
some people-- non-developers on reddit and such-- a few even see the
forced orphaning of 148 as a virtue, that it's punitive for
misbehaving miners. I could not not disagree with that perspective any
more strongly.

Of course, I do not oppose the general concept of a UASF but
_generally_ a soft-fork (of any kind) does not need to risk disruption
of mining, just as segwit's activation does not.  UASF are the
original kind of soft-fork and were the only kind of fork practiced by
Satoshi. P2SH was activated based on a date, and all prior ones were
based on times or heights.  We introduced miner based activation as
part of a process of making Bitcoin more stable in the common case
where the ecosystem is all in harmony.  It's kind of weird to see UASF
portrayed as something new.

It's important the users not be at the mercy of any one part of the
ecosystem to the extent that we can avoid it-- be it developers,
exchanges, chat forums, or mining hardware makers.  Ultimately the
rules of Bitcoin work because they're enforced by the users
collectively-- that is what makes Bitcoin Bitcoin, it's what makes it
something people can count on: the rules aren't easy to just change.

There have been some other UASF proposals that avoid the forced
disruption-- by just defining a new witness bit and allowing
non-upgraded-to-uasf miners and nodes to continue as non-upgraded, I
think they are vastly superior. They would be slower to deploy, but I
do not think that is a flaw.

We should have patience. Bitcoin is a system that should last for all
ages and power mankind for a long time-- ten years from now a couple
years of dispute will seem like nothing. But the reputation we earn
for stability and integrity, for being a system of money people can
count on will mean everything.

If these discussions come up, they'll come up in the form of reminding
people that Bitcoin isn't easily changed at a whim, even when the
whims are obviously good, and how that protects it from being managed
like all the competing systems of money that the world used to use
were managed. Smiley

So have patience, don't take short cuts.  Segwit is a good improvement
and we should respect it by knowing that it's good enough to wait for,
and for however its activated to be done the best way we know how.

Libertarians:  Diligently plotting to take over the world and leave you alone.
classicsucks
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 504


View Profile
April 14, 2017, 08:10:28 PM
 #209


Quote
So have patience, don't take short cuts.  Segwit is a good improvement
and we should respect it by knowing that it's good enough to wait for,
and for however its activated to be done the best way we know how.


Seems legit. At least he's sounding more like a leader with a vision, rather than a troll in mom's basement.

I suspect that Greg is smart enough to know that UASF at best won't work, and at worst it could cause a huge disaster. In this case, he's hedging his bets, pretending that UASF is a harsh option that is nonetheless feasible. This would be Blockstream hoping that the pendulum sways back toward "compromise": everybody adopting Segwit like good little children.

Blockstream doesn't have to get their hands dirty, and won't be accountable should the sky fall when some idiot actually releases a UASF Kraken.
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
April 17, 2017, 01:24:29 PM
Last edit: April 17, 2017, 02:00:35 PM by jonald_fyookball
 #210

UASF could never work.  Where are all the UASF supporters now that Greg has essentially admitted so?
He tried to make it sound like there was something wrong with this particular UASF proposal but
the fact of the matter is that any segwit UASF without majority hash power creates a split.


Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!