activation mechanism considerations

activation mechanism considerations
2021-03-04  9:25 ` Melvin Carvalho
  
From: John Rand @ 2021-03-03 23:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1412 bytes --]

Consensus is important for both taproot and separately for the activation
mechanism.  There are more soft-forks that Bitcoin will need, so it is
important to achieve positive progress on the activation topic also, not
get impatient and rush something ill-considered.  Not all future soft-forks
maybe as widely supported as taproot, and yet it could become existentially
critical that Bitcoin prevails in achieving a future upgrade in dramatic
circumstances, even against powerful interests counter to Bitcoin user and
investors interests.  We should treat the activation topic in a considered
way and with decorum, provide tight non-emotive reasoning devoid of
frustration and impatience.  This is a low drama and convenient time to
incrementally improve activation.  People have varied views about the
deciding factor, or even which factors resulted in segwit activating after
BIP 141 failed using BIP 9.  We do not have to solve everything in one
step, incremental improvement is good, for complex unintuitive topics, to
learn as we go - and it should not be hard to do less badly than what
transpired leading up to BIP 148 and BIP 91.  Failure to upgrade if
permanent, or demoralizing to protocol researchers could be a systemic risk
in itself as there are more upgrades Bitcoin will need.  We are not Ents
but we should use our collective ingenuity to find an incremental
improvement for activation.

John R

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1477 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-03 23:02 [bitcoin-dev] activation mechanism considerations John Rand

  2021-03-04 16:00   ` Steve Lee
  
From: Melvin Carvalho @ 2021-03-04  9:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: John Rand, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2895 bytes --]

On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 10:07, John Rand via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Consensus is important for both taproot and separately for the activation
> mechanism.  There are more soft-forks that Bitcoin will need, so it is
> important to achieve positive progress on the activation topic also, not
> get impatient and rush something ill-considered.  Not all future soft-forks
> maybe as widely supported as taproot, and yet it could become existentially
> critical that Bitcoin prevails in achieving a future upgrade in dramatic
> circumstances, even against powerful interests counter to Bitcoin user and
> investors interests.  We should treat the activation topic in a considered
> way and with decorum, provide tight non-emotive reasoning devoid of
> frustration and impatience.  This is a low drama and convenient time to
> incrementally improve activation.  People have varied views about the
> deciding factor, or even which factors resulted in segwit activating after
> BIP 141 failed using BIP 9.  We do not have to solve everything in one
> step, incremental improvement is good, for complex unintuitive topics, to
> learn as we go - and it should not be hard to do less badly than what
> transpired leading up to BIP 148 and BIP 91.  Failure to upgrade if
> permanent, or demoralizing to protocol researchers could be a systemic risk
> in itself as there are more upgrades Bitcoin will need.  We are not Ents
> but we should use our collective ingenuity to find an incremental
> improvement for activation.
>

Great high level thoughts

The Ents themselves were created in Tolkien's fork of Shakespeare, when he
was frustrated to learn that trees didnt actually march :)

Having followed standards for 10+ years consensus can be tricky

IIRC last time with segwit there was a straw poll in the wiki where devs
could express leanings in an informal, async way.  Something like that
could be of value.

There's an insightful spec written at the IETF "On Consensus and Humming in
the IETF", then IMHO is worth reading

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282

That said, if we could find an incorruptible machine that could gather the
highest fee tx from the mempool and post it every 10 minutes, bitcoin would
largely run itself.  So, while understanding the gravity of each change, we
could perhaps have the mindset that there are a finite number, such that
when complete bitcoin will move to an endgame where for the user it 'just
works', much like the internet.  If devs and changes are needed less, that
could be viewed as a sign of success.  This is a hand wavy way of saying
that forks could potentially be a diminishing issue over time

Just my 2 satoshis


>
> John R
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3891 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2021-03-04  9:25 ` Melvin Carvalho

  
From: Steve Lee @ 2021-03-04 16:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion, Melvin Carvalho

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3343 bytes --]

+1 for calm and patience as we navigate the activation mechanism.

On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 3:24 AM Melvin Carvalho via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 10:07, John Rand via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Consensus is important for both taproot and separately for the activation
>> mechanism.  There are more soft-forks that Bitcoin will need, so it is
>> important to achieve positive progress on the activation topic also, not
>> get impatient and rush something ill-considered.  Not all future soft-forks
>> maybe as widely supported as taproot, and yet it could become existentially
>> critical that Bitcoin prevails in achieving a future upgrade in dramatic
>> circumstances, even against powerful interests counter to Bitcoin user and
>> investors interests.  We should treat the activation topic in a considered
>> way and with decorum, provide tight non-emotive reasoning devoid of
>> frustration and impatience.  This is a low drama and convenient time to
>> incrementally improve activation.  People have varied views about the
>> deciding factor, or even which factors resulted in segwit activating after
>> BIP 141 failed using BIP 9.  We do not have to solve everything in one
>> step, incremental improvement is good, for complex unintuitive topics, to
>> learn as we go - and it should not be hard to do less badly than what
>> transpired leading up to BIP 148 and BIP 91.  Failure to upgrade if
>> permanent, or demoralizing to protocol researchers could be a systemic risk
>> in itself as there are more upgrades Bitcoin will need.  We are not Ents
>> but we should use our collective ingenuity to find an incremental
>> improvement for activation.
>>
>
> Great high level thoughts
>
> The Ents themselves were created in Tolkien's fork of Shakespeare, when he
> was frustrated to learn that trees didnt actually march :)
>
> Having followed standards for 10+ years consensus can be tricky
>
> IIRC last time with segwit there was a straw poll in the wiki where devs
> could express leanings in an informal, async way.  Something like that
> could be of value.
>
> There's an insightful spec written at the IETF "On Consensus and Humming
> in the IETF", then IMHO is worth reading
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
>
> That said, if we could find an incorruptible machine that could gather the
> highest fee tx from the mempool and post it every 10 minutes, bitcoin would
> largely run itself.  So, while understanding the gravity of each change, we
> could perhaps have the mindset that there are a finite number, such that
> when complete bitcoin will move to an endgame where for the user it 'just
> works', much like the internet.  If devs and changes are needed less, that
> could be viewed as a sign of success.  This is a hand wavy way of saying
> that forks could potentially be a diminishing issue over time
>
> Just my 2 satoshis
>
>
>>
>> John R
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4969 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]