1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
|
Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80F4A71
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:17:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out01.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF176117
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:17:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx05.mykolab.com (mx05.mykolab.com [10.20.7.161])
by mx-out01.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBFE961629
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:17:40 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:17:39 +0200
Message-ID: <2381760.VTJ5BOIlGi@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <22046ac7-df36-2e2a-759e-b3dd01601c59@gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBjdyJ297-GZvVc-wQwCEX-cRAGTNWDd92SgVzdCcD_ZMw@mail.gmail.com>
<7939356.11nSWPlGYM@strawberry>
<22046ac7-df36-2e2a-759e-b3dd01601c59@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:50:58 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:17:44 -0000
On Sunday, 16 October 2016 17:19:37 CEST Andrew C wrote:
> On 10/16/2016 4:58 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Lets get back to the topic. Having a longer fallow period is a simple
> > way to be safe. Your comments make me even more scared that safety is
> > not taken into account the way it would.
>=20
> Can you please explain how having a longer grace period makes it any
> safer? Once the fork reaches the LOCKED_IN status, the fork will become
> active after the period is over. How does having a longer grace period
> make this any safer besides just adding more waiting before it goes
> active?=20
As Marek wrote just minutes before your email came in; companies will not=20
roll out their updates until it locks in. Peter Todd says the same thing.
So your assumption that the lock-in time is the END of the upgrading is=20
false. Thats only the case for miners.
The entire point here is that SegWit is much bigger than just full nodes=20
(including miner).
An entire ecosystem of Bitconin will have a need to upgrade.
I understand people saying that non-miners don't *need* to upgrade in order=
=20
to avoid being kicked of the network, but truely, thats a bogus argument.
People want to actually participate in Bitcoin and that means they need to=
=20
understand all of it. Not just see anyone-can-spend transactions.
I think its rather odd to think that developers on this list can decide
the risk profile that Bitcoin using companies or individuals should have.
> You said something about rolling back the changes. There is no
> mechanism for roll backs, and the whole point of the soft fork
> signalling is such that there is no need to roll back anything because
> miners have signaled that they are supporting the fork.
There are a bunch of really large assumptions in there that I disagree with.
=46irst of all, miners running the latest software doesn't mean the softwar=
e=20
is free from flaws. Everyone makes mistakes. People that see a way to abuse=
=20
the system may have found things and are not reporting it because they want=
=20
to abuse the flaw for their own gains. Which is exactly what happened with=
=20
Etherium.
The amount of code and the amount of changes in SegWit makes this a very=20
dangerous change in (of?) Bitcoin. I counted 10 core concepts in Bitcoin=20
being changed with it. We don't yet know how they will interact. We can=E2=
=80=99t.
You are asking people to create everyone-can-spend transactions that would=
=20
mean a loss of funds to everyone that used it if we do find a major flaw an=
d=20
need to rollback.
The gamble is rather uncomforable to many...
=2D-=20
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
|
