Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 08:34:24 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: "Yosef" <asix@disroot.org>
Message-ID: <415e793656ab4326b48d9dc050a85eb8@disroot.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: [bitcoin-dev]  Modern Soft Fork Activation
Precedence: list

tl;dr How about 80% ?=0A=0AThe fallback to BIP-8 makes sense, but it's no=
t a graceful one and we absolutely prefer BIP-9 to succeed. A failure to =
reach 95% readiness signalling means 2.5 years delay, 3.5 years in total,=
 not yet counting.=0A=0A95% can prove difficult to achieve. Some % of neg=
ligent miners that forget to upgrade is expected. Completing that to 5% i=
s not too difficult for a small malicious minority trying to delay the ac=
tivation. This is the issue Matt's goal #5 aims to prevent, and while the=
 fallback to BIP-8 helps, BIP-9=E2=80=99s 95% requirement makes it worse =
by allowing quite a neglected minority to force a dramatic delay. Also no=
te how in such case it would have been better to skip BIP-9 altogether an=
d maybe save 1.5 years.=0A=0AMatt mentions the 95% requirement under goal=
 #3 "Don't (needlessly) lose hashpower to un-upgraded miners". If that is=
 the trade-off, I'd say 2.5 years delay is worse than a momentary loss of=
 hashrate. The protocol is quiet resilient to hashrate fluctuations and, =
as others mentioned, at that point miners don=E2=80=99t just signal, but =
lose coins if they don't upgrade, so the hashpower loss is expected to sh=
ortly correct. This also means goal #4 is not really effected.=0A=0AOn Sa=
t Jan 11 14:42:07 UTC 2020, Anthony Towns wrote:=0A=0A> For me, the focus=
 there is on Matt's first point: "avoid activating [or merging, or even p=
roposing] in the face of significant, reasonable, and directed objection"=
=0A=0AI agree, and believe the outreach and review process around taproot=
 are maybe the best we had so far. Notably goal #1 should be mostly satis=
fied already at merge time, so risking 3.5 years delay after that, seems =
excessive.=0A=0ABIP-91 =E2=80=9CReduced threshold Segwit MASF=E2=80=9D wa=
s deployed by miners specifically to reduce the 95% requirement down to 8=
0% during the segwit drama. While hopefully taproot won=E2=80=99t produce=
 any such excitements, the events around segwit activation and the weird =
=E2=80=9Chash wars=E2=80=9D meme that later followed =E2=80=93 might enco=
urage some to try similar games again.=0A=0AThe difference between `5% mi=
nus apathetic-miners` and `20% minus apathetic-miners` is dramatic and ca=
n make such attempts an order of magnitude more difficult.=0A=0AThe tapro=
ot process is looking great so far, I feel it will be a mistake to put it=
 on a route that can easily extend to so many years. I suggest keeping Ma=
tt=E2=80=99s proposal as is but decrease BIP-9=E2=80=99s 95% threshold do=
wn to around 80%.=0A=0AYosef