MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: earonesty@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAMBsKS9P1wBNS9u1Ly5USQ=YTd-m8uMK-xZGYkYa4J=f+jz3ow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOG=w-saibrGeOSaLFtcFo_D+2Gw4zoNA-brS=aPuBoyGuPCZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgSGNErAHmZCeKr+agnS4YEwf57yAmvv70XzkkqRfvdDig@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJowKg+Y=1pa7CJq0SWBi4d=_q306=FnwUiAhkgJwGWWQjV2Pw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMBsKS9P1wBNS9u1Ly5USQ=YTd-m8uMK-xZGYkYa4J=f+jz3ow@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:48:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJowKgK9r_V0q+JoBha=KFL45gKz9HKjnFJyWXrKGrHgFbvL_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alphonse Pace <alp.bitcoin@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c055e9c185ef7054d9b12d4
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF
Precedence: list

--94eb2c055e9c185ef7054d9b12d4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Bitcoin must level the playing field for mining or it is fundamentally
broken.   And there are two obvious solutions:

1. WTXID commitment has as a flag day upgrade. It's a fix to a fairly
serious security issue - made even worse by the existence of patents on the
code.

2. Embed the code for performing a covert ASICBOOST into Bitcoin core's
reference implementation.   But, since this would violate patents held in
China and the U.S., it could be a problem.

Of these, I think the first should be far less controversial.

One or the other must be done - if we can't fix security and licensing
problems in Bitcoin, what can we fix?


On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Alphonse Pace <alp.bitcoin@gmail.com>
wrote:

> A WTXID commitment would (likely) need to be a UASF.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> The "UASF movement" seems a bit premature to me - I doubt UASF will be
>> necessary if a WTXID commitment is tried first.   I think that should be
>> first-efforts focus.
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev <
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> triggering BIP141 activation, and therefore not enabling the new
>>>> consensus rules on already deployed full nodes. BIP148 is making an
>>>> explicit choice to favor dragging along those users which have upgraded to
>>>> BIP141 support over those miners who have failed to upgrade.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I do not follow the argument that a critical design feature of a
>>> particular "user activated soft fork" could be that it is users don't need
>>> to be involved.  If the goal is user activation I would think that the
>>> expectation would be that the overwhelming majority of users would be
>>> upgrading to do it, if that isn't the case, then it isn't really a user
>>> activated softfork-- it's something else.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On an aside, I'm somewhat disappointed that you have decided to make a
>>>> public statement against the UASF proposal. Not because we disagree -- that
>>>> is fine -- but because any UASF must be a grassroots effort and
>>>> endorsements (or denouncements) detract from that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So it has to be supported by the public but I can't say why I don't
>>> support it? This seems extremely suspect to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>

--94eb2c055e9c185ef7054d9b12d4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>Bitcoin must level the playing field for mi=
ning or it is fundamentally broken.=C2=A0=C2=A0 And there are two obvious s=
olutions:<br><br>1. WTXID commitment has as a flag day upgrade. It&#39;s a =
fix to a fairly serious security issue - made even worse by the existence o=
f patents on the code.=C2=A0=C2=A0 <br><br>2. Embed the code for performing=
 a covert ASICBOOST into Bitcoin core&#39;s reference implementation.=C2=A0=
=C2=A0 But, since this would violate patents held in China and the U.S., it=
 could be a problem.<br><br></div></div>Of these, I think the first should =
be far less controversial.=C2=A0=C2=A0 <br><br>One or the other must be don=
e - if we can&#39;t fix security and licensing problems in Bitcoin, what ca=
n we fix?</div><div><div><br></div></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><=
br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Alphonse Pa=
ce <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:alp.bitcoin@gmail.com" target=3D=
"_blank">alp.bitcoin@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">A WTXID commitment would (likely) need to be=
 a UASF.<div><br></div></div><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at=
 11:17 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"m=
ailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@=
lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>The &quot;UASF movement&quot; seems a b=
it premature to me - I doubt UASF will be necessary if a WTXID commitment i=
s tried first.=C2=A0=C2=A0 I think that should be first-efforts focus.<br><=
/div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><=
div class=3D"m_-1452426406923278833h5">On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Gre=
gory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoi=
n-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxf=
ounda<wbr>tion.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex"><div><div class=3D"m_-1452426406923278833h5"><div dir=3D"ltr"=
><span>On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev <s=
pan dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=
" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>&gt;</spa=
n> wrote:<br></span><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><span><div class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-le=
ft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span style=3D"backgro=
und-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">triggering BIP141 activation, and therefore =
not enabling the new=20
consensus rules on already deployed full nodes. BIP148 is making an=20
explicit choice to favor dragging along those users which have upgraded=20
to BIP141 support over those miners who have failed to upgrade.<br></span><=
/div></blockquote></div></span><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br><div>I do not=
 follow the argument that a critical design feature of a particular &quot;u=
ser activated soft fork&quot; could be that it is users don&#39;t need to b=
e involved.=C2=A0 If the goal is user activation I would think that the exp=
ectation would be that the overwhelming majority of users would be upgradin=
g to do it, if that isn&#39;t the case, then it isn&#39;t really a user act=
ivated softfork-- it&#39;s something else.<br></div><span><div>=C2=A0</div>=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span style=3D"background-c=
olor:rgba(255,255,255,0)">On
 an aside, I&#39;m somewhat disappointed that you have decided to make a=20
public statement against the UASF proposal. Not because we disagree --=20
that is fine -- but because any UASF must be a grassroots effort and=20
endorsements (or denouncements) detract from that.</span></div></blockquote=
><div><br></div></span><div>So it has to be supported by the public but I c=
an&#39;t say why I don&#39;t support it? This seems extremely suspect to me=
.</div><br><div>=C2=A0</div></div></div></div>
<br></div></div><span>______________________________<wbr>_________________<=
br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
<br></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--94eb2c055e9c185ef7054d9b12d4--