In-Reply-To: <202103021857.39275.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CAFvNmHR0WwMp0eNQhvs9uFFSq3wGdHVTFUFmByLLdz7EUjg8uQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <b56bd582-e605-4389-96ce-c1cb0c58f1ad@gmail.com>
 <202103021857.39275.luke@dashjr.org>
Thread-Topic: Re: [bitcoin-dev] UASF (LOT=true) kick off meeting - Tuesday
 March 2nd 19:00 UTC on ##uasf IRC channel
User-Agent: Android
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----D3WBVVTYAKYGAQSF3D2XW8DH5MOU49"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2021 11:36:54 -0800
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Message-ID: <99431100-cf4a-48f7-afd1-37ab7fa92c0a@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@gmail.com>,
 bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] UASF (LOT=true) kick off meeting - Tuesday March
	2nd 19:00 UTC on ##uasf IRC channel
Precedence: list

------D3WBVVTYAKYGAQSF3D2XW8DH5MOU49
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8

You can try to redefine all you want but it doesn't make what you're saying=
 true=2E

A soft fork is a constriction of rules

A 51% attack is a soft fo=
rk with majority mining power=2E

I didn't say that LOT=3Dtrue does it I sa=
id that it must achieve 51% miner support to pose reorg risks to force apat=
hetic users into paying attention=2E Please read my message again=2E

Your =
definition of invalid has no power here=2E We are all painfully aware of yo=
ur semantic mental gymnastics=2E

Cheers
Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces


On Mar 2, 2=
021, 10:58 AM, at 10:58 AM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr=2Eorg> wrote:
>On Tues=
day 02 March 2021 18:22:35 Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces via bitcoin-dev
>wrote:
>> =
I'm realizing that a clear advantage of LOT=3Dfalse is that it can
>happen
=
>> without the need for a social movement=2E All that is really needed is
>=
the
>> convincing of 95% miners=2E Apathetic users will never notice any ki=
nd
>of
>> service disruption no matter the success or failure of the
>activ=
ation=2E This
>> is obviously why it naturally became the default activatio=
n method=2E
>
>No=2E Miners enforcing rules without the social support is a=
 51% attack,
>not a 
>softfork=2E
>
>> While LOT=3Dtrue, on the other hand,=
 must be able to 51% the blockchain
>to
>> win the apathetic users=2E But t=
hen the reorgs will not be pretty=2E Or
>if it
>> ever clearly gets over th=
e 51% hurdle then all apathetic users now
>need to
>> scramble to use the r=
ogue client to be safe from reorgs=2E Either way
>it's
>> disruptive=2E
>
>=
No, LOT=3DTrue doesn't do this=2E It only happens if miners choose to
>crea=
te an 
>invalid chain, which they could do at any time with or without a
>s=
oftfork 
>involved=2E
>
>Luke

------D3WBVVTYAKYGAQSF3D2XW8DH5MOU49
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head></head><body><div dir=3D"auto">You can try to redefine all you =
want but it doesn't make what you're saying true=2E<br><br></div>
<div dir=
=3D"auto">A soft fork is a constriction of rules<br><br></div>
<div dir=3D"=
auto">A 51% attack is a soft fork with majority mining power=2E<br><br></di=
v>
<div dir=3D"auto">I didn't say that LOT=3Dtrue does it I said that it mu=
st achieve 51% miner support to pose reorg risks to force apathetic users i=
nto paying attention=2E Please read my message again=2E<br><br></div>
<div =
dir=3D"auto">Your definition of invalid has no power here=2E We are all pai=
nfully aware of your semantic mental gymnastics=2E<br><br></div>
<div dir=
=3D"auto">Cheers<br></div>
<div dir=3D"auto">Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces<br></div>=

<div class=3D"gmail_quote" >On Mar 2, 2021, at 10:58 AM, Luke Dashjr &lt;<=
a href=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr=2Eorg" target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr=2Eorg</a>=
&gt; wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0=
=2E8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pr=
e class=3D"blue">On Tuesday 02 March 2021 18:22:35 Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces via=
 bitcoin-dev wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0=
pt 0pt 1ex 0=2E8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> I'=
m realizing that a clear advantage of LOT=3Dfalse is that it can happen<br>=
 without the need for a social movement=2E All that is really needed is the=
<br> convincing of 95% miners=2E Apathetic users will never notice any kind=
 of<br> service disruption no matter the success or failure of the activati=
on=2E This<br> is obviously why it naturally became the default activation =
method=2E<br></blockquote><br>No=2E Miners enforcing rules without the soci=
al support is a 51% attack, not a <br>softfork=2E<br><br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0=2E8ex; border-left: 1px sol=
id #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> While LOT=3Dtrue, on the other hand, must =
be able to 51% the blockchain to<br> win the apathetic users=2E But then th=
e reorgs will not be pretty=2E Or if it<br> ever clearly gets over the 51% =
hurdle then all apathetic users now need to<br> scramble to use the rogue c=
lient to be safe from reorgs=2E Either way it's<br> disruptive=2E<br></bloc=
kquote><br>No, LOT=3DTrue doesn't do this=2E It only happens if miners choo=
se to create an <br>invalid chain, which they could do at any time with or =
without a softfork <br>involved=2E<br><br>Luke<br></pre></blockquote></div>=
</body></html>
------D3WBVVTYAKYGAQSF3D2XW8DH5MOU49--