New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Alerts: add warning for potential 2017-08-01 BIP148 split #1674

Merged
merged 10 commits into from Jul 13, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
7 participants
@harding
Contributor

harding commented Jul 12, 2017

This PR adds a warning for the chainsplit that may occur on 1 August 2017. It's focused on describing to non-expert users what they should do to secure their funds and does not advocate any particular position on the fork or attempt to describe the background of the situation.

The warning is displayed in orange above every regular page on Bitcoin.org; a comment in the file suggests changing the warning to red 72 hours before the beginning of the potential chain split. I will submit a PR for that on the 28th.

I will do my best to submit PRs with changes to the page on and after August 1st, although of course anyone else can submit a PR to Bitcoin.org too.

Preview:

2017-07-12-08_44_59_634405919

@wbnns

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wbnns

wbnns Jul 12, 2017

Member

@harding Thanks for working on this. I agree there are certainly risks with the upcoming dates, however, I'm concerned in that Bitcoin.org has received just over half a million visits in the past week alone (~73,000 visits/day) and the TLDR on this alert (unless I am reading it wrong) is to not doing anything with Bitcoin on or after August 1, anywhere, and to wait for further instructions from multiple trustworthy sources or you could lose your bitcoin. It sounds very cataclysmic.

Multiple trustworthy sources also sounds subjective and vague.

I'm not sure this is good UX, it seems very confusing from a site visitor's perspective and provides no long term reassurance or solutions.

Member

wbnns commented Jul 12, 2017

@harding Thanks for working on this. I agree there are certainly risks with the upcoming dates, however, I'm concerned in that Bitcoin.org has received just over half a million visits in the past week alone (~73,000 visits/day) and the TLDR on this alert (unless I am reading it wrong) is to not doing anything with Bitcoin on or after August 1, anywhere, and to wait for further instructions from multiple trustworthy sources or you could lose your bitcoin. It sounds very cataclysmic.

Multiple trustworthy sources also sounds subjective and vague.

I'm not sure this is good UX, it seems very confusing from a site visitor's perspective and provides no long term reassurance or solutions.

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

@wbnns

the TLDR on this alert (unless I am reading it wrong) is to not doing anything with Bitcoin after August 1, anywhere, and to wait for further instructions from multiple trustworthy sources or you could lose your bitcoin.

That is exactly the intended TLDR. Do you think I should summarize it at the top?

Multiple trustworthy sources also sounds subjective and vague.

I can clarify to say "sources you personally trust". Will that help? In my attempt to be neutral here, I'm trying to encourage people to pick their own news sources, as surely there will be various spins on whatever events happen. (Though I do link to our news site listing as a start for any real newbies.)

I'm also trying to make sure we don't set up Bitcoin.org as some sort final arbitrator of what to do. People are responsible for their own bitcoins; we're just here to help when we can.

it seems very confusing from a site visitor's perspective

In what regard? Your TLDR grasps the point completely.

and provides no long term reassurance or solutions.

There are none that I'm aware of. This is a wait-and-see scenario. Potential economic splits are scary as fuck, and I don't think we should dilute that message.

Contributor

harding commented Jul 12, 2017

@wbnns

the TLDR on this alert (unless I am reading it wrong) is to not doing anything with Bitcoin after August 1, anywhere, and to wait for further instructions from multiple trustworthy sources or you could lose your bitcoin.

That is exactly the intended TLDR. Do you think I should summarize it at the top?

Multiple trustworthy sources also sounds subjective and vague.

I can clarify to say "sources you personally trust". Will that help? In my attempt to be neutral here, I'm trying to encourage people to pick their own news sources, as surely there will be various spins on whatever events happen. (Though I do link to our news site listing as a start for any real newbies.)

I'm also trying to make sure we don't set up Bitcoin.org as some sort final arbitrator of what to do. People are responsible for their own bitcoins; we're just here to help when we can.

it seems very confusing from a site visitor's perspective

In what regard? Your TLDR grasps the point completely.

and provides no long term reassurance or solutions.

There are none that I'm aware of. This is a wait-and-see scenario. Potential economic splits are scary as fuck, and I don't think we should dilute that message.

@theymos

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@theymos

theymos Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

I consider a significant BIP148 fork to be rather unlikely, but this is a prudent warning just in case. Better safe than sorry.

Maybe the page should warn people to move their BTC to a wallet that at least allows exporting private keys, since if you can't export private keys, then the service will be deciding how your coins are handled in a split for you.

In stuff I've been writing on this, I've preferred to use the term "split" rather than "fork", since the term "fork" focuses on the block chain, which may not be quite right.

Contributor

theymos commented Jul 12, 2017

I consider a significant BIP148 fork to be rather unlikely, but this is a prudent warning just in case. Better safe than sorry.

Maybe the page should warn people to move their BTC to a wallet that at least allows exporting private keys, since if you can't export private keys, then the service will be deciding how your coins are handled in a split for you.

In stuff I've been writing on this, I've preferred to use the term "split" rather than "fork", since the term "fork" focuses on the block chain, which may not be quite right.

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

@theymos the current text includes the following point:

Be wary of storing your bitcoins on an exchange or other third-party
wallet. If they accept transactions during the event, they could lose
money and will likely spread those loses across all their users. If
there end up being two or more competing versions of Bitcoin, then they
may refuse to give you your bitcoins on versions they don't like.

Do you think I should also mention private keys? Maybe say something about making a wallet backup, so it doesn't sound so technical?

I've preferred to use the term "split" rather than "fork"

Good idea. I'll make that change. Thanks!

Contributor

harding commented Jul 12, 2017

@theymos the current text includes the following point:

Be wary of storing your bitcoins on an exchange or other third-party
wallet. If they accept transactions during the event, they could lose
money and will likely spread those loses across all their users. If
there end up being two or more competing versions of Bitcoin, then they
may refuse to give you your bitcoins on versions they don't like.

Do you think I should also mention private keys? Maybe say something about making a wallet backup, so it doesn't sound so technical?

I've preferred to use the term "split" rather than "fork"

Good idea. I'll make that change. Thanks!

@wbnns

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wbnns

wbnns Jul 12, 2017

Member

@harding If we are going to have criteria for this type of alert, we should probably also have something objective that we can agree on that will enable it to be removed.

A bright orange or red alert indefinitely on Bitcoin.org at the top of all pages is not a good first time experience. It is going to introduce users to many warnings and terms that they simply aren't going to be familiar with.

For example, one of our top pages is the Getting Started page (there have been 450k+ visits to that page in the last month). No doubt people are going to click on the warning before they read how to get started. The warning assumes they already have and will understand what you're suggesting they do.

Member

wbnns commented Jul 12, 2017

@harding If we are going to have criteria for this type of alert, we should probably also have something objective that we can agree on that will enable it to be removed.

A bright orange or red alert indefinitely on Bitcoin.org at the top of all pages is not a good first time experience. It is going to introduce users to many warnings and terms that they simply aren't going to be familiar with.

For example, one of our top pages is the Getting Started page (there have been 450k+ visits to that page in the last month). No doubt people are going to click on the warning before they read how to get started. The warning assumes they already have and will understand what you're suggesting they do.

@theymos

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@theymos

theymos Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

@harding Yeah, recommending making a wallet backup (or switching to a wallet that supports it) might be a good way to go about it. I think that a lot of people don't even realize that they're using a bank rather than a real wallet.

Contributor

theymos commented Jul 12, 2017

@harding Yeah, recommending making a wallet backup (or switching to a wallet that supports it) might be a good way to go about it. I think that a lot of people don't even realize that they're using a bank rather than a real wallet.

@wbnns

wbnns requested changes Jul 12, 2017 edited

@harding Left a few comments on some components to the alert for when you have time to review.

Show outdated Hide outdated _alerts/2017-07-12-disruptive-forks.md
Show outdated Hide outdated _alerts/2017-07-12-disruptive-forks.md
Show outdated Hide outdated _alerts/2017-07-12-disruptive-forks.md
@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

@wbnns Criteria for removal is a good idea. It's difficult to commit in advance to hard criteria, but I suggest that we keep the warning up until all but one side of the chain split appears to be abandoned. Alternatively, if more than a week passes and both chains still are being extended at a reasonable rate, we should consider providing instructions for splitting coins and ensuring normal transacting occurs on the user's preferred chain (or link to someone else's instructions for this); in that case, we'll probably have to keep the warning up for at least a month more so that we can try to stop users from making transactions without reply protection.

Regarding bad UI, I think the second sentence of the alert boils it down in plain English:

This means that any bitcoins you receive
after August 1st may disappear from your wallet at a later time or be a
type of bitcoin that other people will not accept as payment.

I think the rest of the post is pretty non-technical too, since that was a primary goal, although I'm happy to receive any suggested phrasing changes you have. I can also write a section or a separate document with a short explanation for non-Bitcoiners if you think that would be useful. (I don't think it would be myself; I think the current document should make anyone hesitant about using Bitcoin at the moment, which is the correct response, even if they don't know all the terms.)

Contributor

harding commented Jul 12, 2017

@wbnns Criteria for removal is a good idea. It's difficult to commit in advance to hard criteria, but I suggest that we keep the warning up until all but one side of the chain split appears to be abandoned. Alternatively, if more than a week passes and both chains still are being extended at a reasonable rate, we should consider providing instructions for splitting coins and ensuring normal transacting occurs on the user's preferred chain (or link to someone else's instructions for this); in that case, we'll probably have to keep the warning up for at least a month more so that we can try to stop users from making transactions without reply protection.

Regarding bad UI, I think the second sentence of the alert boils it down in plain English:

This means that any bitcoins you receive
after August 1st may disappear from your wallet at a later time or be a
type of bitcoin that other people will not accept as payment.

I think the rest of the post is pretty non-technical too, since that was a primary goal, although I'm happy to receive any suggested phrasing changes you have. I can also write a section or a separate document with a short explanation for non-Bitcoiners if you think that would be useful. (I don't think it would be myself; I think the current document should make anyone hesitant about using Bitcoin at the moment, which is the correct response, even if they don't know all the terms.)

@wbnns wbnns added the Under Review label Jul 12, 2017

@wbnns

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wbnns

wbnns Jul 12, 2017

Member

@harding

I think the current document should make anyone hesitant about using Bitcoin at the moment, which is the correct response, even if they don't know all the terms.)

I do not recommend this. Bitcoin.org is one of the most highly trafficked bitcoin websites with millions of visits a month. Many people in the media and users alike around the globe often cite it each week - on TV, in print, on web pages around the world.

If this alert is too stark (in it's current version, as you mentioned, the TLDR you've intended to communicate is basically, don't use Bitcoin on or after August 1st), it risks spreading a lot of FUD and panic selling before August 1st that could wipe billions off Bitcoin's market cap and who knows how much out of people's pockets.

Member

wbnns commented Jul 12, 2017

@harding

I think the current document should make anyone hesitant about using Bitcoin at the moment, which is the correct response, even if they don't know all the terms.)

I do not recommend this. Bitcoin.org is one of the most highly trafficked bitcoin websites with millions of visits a month. Many people in the media and users alike around the globe often cite it each week - on TV, in print, on web pages around the world.

If this alert is too stark (in it's current version, as you mentioned, the TLDR you've intended to communicate is basically, don't use Bitcoin on or after August 1st), it risks spreading a lot of FUD and panic selling before August 1st that could wipe billions off Bitcoin's market cap and who knows how much out of people's pockets.

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

@wbnns

If this alert is too stark (in it's current version, as you mentioned, the TLDR you've intended to communicate is basically, don't use Bitcoin on or after August 1st), it risks spreading a lot of FUD and panic selling before August 1st that could wipe billions off Bitcoin's market cap and who knows how much out of people's pockets.

I refuse to evaluate my writing based on how it might affect Bitcoin's market cap. I resolve only to tell the truth as best as I am able, and in this document I suggest to users exactly the concerns I hold for myself and exactly the same steps I plan to take myself---specifically that potential chain splits are scary and that I will not accept bitcoins from August 1st until I believe the situation is resolved.

Contributor

harding commented Jul 12, 2017

@wbnns

If this alert is too stark (in it's current version, as you mentioned, the TLDR you've intended to communicate is basically, don't use Bitcoin on or after August 1st), it risks spreading a lot of FUD and panic selling before August 1st that could wipe billions off Bitcoin's market cap and who knows how much out of people's pockets.

I refuse to evaluate my writing based on how it might affect Bitcoin's market cap. I resolve only to tell the truth as best as I am able, and in this document I suggest to users exactly the concerns I hold for myself and exactly the same steps I plan to take myself---specifically that potential chain splits are scary and that I will not accept bitcoins from August 1st until I believe the situation is resolved.

@wbnns

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wbnns

wbnns Jul 12, 2017

Member

@harding I understand, but disagree - there is a difference between what you are terming as a "correct response" (your assertion about what you wrote) and speculation. You're speculating on a personal belief that Bitcoin shouldn't be used for an indefinite amount of time on or after August 1st and manifesting that as a Bitcoin.org alert to millions of people:

image

I do agree there are risks associated with a chain split that we can inform users about, but you'll need to compromise and work on the wording so it doesn't read with so much FUD.

Member

wbnns commented Jul 12, 2017

@harding I understand, but disagree - there is a difference between what you are terming as a "correct response" (your assertion about what you wrote) and speculation. You're speculating on a personal belief that Bitcoin shouldn't be used for an indefinite amount of time on or after August 1st and manifesting that as a Bitcoin.org alert to millions of people:

image

I do agree there are risks associated with a chain split that we can inform users about, but you'll need to compromise and work on the wording so it doesn't read with so much FUD.

@wbnns wbnns changed the title from Alerts: add warning for potential 2017-08-01 BIP148 fork to Alerts: add warning for potential 2017-08-01 BIP148 split Jul 12, 2017

@wbnns wbnns self-assigned this Jul 12, 2017

@Cobra-Bitcoin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Cobra-Bitcoin

Cobra-Bitcoin Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

Looks good to me. We will just remove the alert if nothing happens, so I think it's good to be safe and warn users based on the worst case scenario. Many people don't even know there will be a split.

Let's try to merge this today, we can make small changes later, but I think an alert like this is long overdue. It's our duty to inform users and not sugar coat the harsh reality.

This situation sucks, but we have the the triumvirate of evil (Roger, Jihan, Craig) to blame for the current mess we found ourselves in...

Contributor

Cobra-Bitcoin commented Jul 12, 2017

Looks good to me. We will just remove the alert if nothing happens, so I think it's good to be safe and warn users based on the worst case scenario. Many people don't even know there will be a split.

Let's try to merge this today, we can make small changes later, but I think an alert like this is long overdue. It's our duty to inform users and not sugar coat the harsh reality.

This situation sucks, but we have the the triumvirate of evil (Roger, Jihan, Craig) to blame for the current mess we found ourselves in...

@wbnns

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wbnns

wbnns Jul 12, 2017

Member

@Cobra-Bitcoin We should update the wording before, though. As it stands now, it says not to use Bitcoin on or after August 1st with no clear definition of when it can ever be used again.

Member

wbnns commented Jul 12, 2017

@Cobra-Bitcoin We should update the wording before, though. As it stands now, it says not to use Bitcoin on or after August 1st with no clear definition of when it can ever be used again.

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

I'm just fixing some of the issues identified above now and will push the commits to my branch within the next 30 minutes.

Contributor

harding commented Jul 12, 2017

I'm just fixing some of the issues identified above now and will push the commits to my branch within the next 30 minutes.

harding added some commits Jul 12, 2017

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

Pushed some new commits and setup a live preview particularly for anyone who wants to help test the Javascript-based localized dates.

@achow101 I addressed the localtime issue using some Javascript. If JS is enabled, the dates should be displayed in localtime (works here). If JS is disabled or if the code is unable to parse the date, the original string is left unchanged (the base string is in this required format: 2017/08/01 00:00 UTC).

I've only tested this on Firefox so far.

This change required some rewriting to not mention August 1st specifically in the text and also to deal with the full datetime string. I noticed when testing this change that the fork starts for me on July 31st, which means it starts then for other people too, so I changed the banner message from "August 1st" to "July 31st".

@theymos I changed the filename and the text to use "split" instead of "fork". I also mentioned wallet backups as a criteria for deciding whether or not you're using a third-party service.

@wbnns In the "After" section, I mentioned that we would updated; thank you for suggesting that clarification.

If you would like to suggest any other phrasing changes, even after this is merged, I'd be happy to consider them.

Thank you everyone for review. Please feel free to suggest further changes and I'll either update before merge or open a new PR after merge.

Contributor

harding commented Jul 12, 2017

Pushed some new commits and setup a live preview particularly for anyone who wants to help test the Javascript-based localized dates.

@achow101 I addressed the localtime issue using some Javascript. If JS is enabled, the dates should be displayed in localtime (works here). If JS is disabled or if the code is unable to parse the date, the original string is left unchanged (the base string is in this required format: 2017/08/01 00:00 UTC).

I've only tested this on Firefox so far.

This change required some rewriting to not mention August 1st specifically in the text and also to deal with the full datetime string. I noticed when testing this change that the fork starts for me on July 31st, which means it starts then for other people too, so I changed the banner message from "August 1st" to "July 31st".

@theymos I changed the filename and the text to use "split" instead of "fork". I also mentioned wallet backups as a criteria for deciding whether or not you're using a third-party service.

@wbnns In the "After" section, I mentioned that we would updated; thank you for suggesting that clarification.

If you would like to suggest any other phrasing changes, even after this is merged, I'd be happy to consider them.

Thank you everyone for review. Please feel free to suggest further changes and I'll either update before merge or open a new PR after merge.

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

@wbnns

As it stands now, it says not to use Bitcoin on or after August 1st with no clear definition of when it can ever be used again.

I think the definition is clear---you even cited it in your TLDR: for users, the situation is resolved when multiple news sources they trust say that the situation is resolved. That's the best I think we can give non-experts. Actually, it's probably the best we can give experts too, as this will be an interactive event with multiple people trying to affect the outcome---some of them in ways we may not be able to predict right now.

Contributor

harding commented Jul 12, 2017

@wbnns

As it stands now, it says not to use Bitcoin on or after August 1st with no clear definition of when it can ever be used again.

I think the definition is clear---you even cited it in your TLDR: for users, the situation is resolved when multiple news sources they trust say that the situation is resolved. That's the best I think we can give non-experts. Actually, it's probably the best we can give experts too, as this will be an interactive event with multiple people trying to affect the outcome---some of them in ways we may not be able to predict right now.

@theymos

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@theymos

theymos Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

LGTM.

Contributor

theymos commented Jul 12, 2017

LGTM.

@achow101

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@achow101

achow101 Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

ACK

Sent from my Google Pixel using FastHub

Contributor

achow101 commented Jul 12, 2017

ACK

Sent from my Google Pixel using FastHub

@wbnns

@harding Thanks for updating your PR, I just left a few more changes.

Show outdated Hide outdated _alerts/2017-07-12-potential-split.md
Show outdated Hide outdated _alerts/2017-07-12-potential-split.md
## After the event
We will update this section with more information after {{start}}.
Please wait until multiple news sources that you trust have stated that

This comment has been minimized.

@wbnns

wbnns Jul 12, 2017

Member

Let's change this to:

Please wait until multiple news sources that you trust have stated that the event is resolved or this alert has been updated to indicate as such before returning to normal Bitcoin use.

@wbnns

wbnns Jul 12, 2017

Member

Let's change this to:

Please wait until multiple news sources that you trust have stated that the event is resolved or this alert has been updated to indicate as such before returning to normal Bitcoin use.

This comment has been minimized.

@harding

harding Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

No. It's important that users consult with multiple sources and not simply trust us.

@harding

harding Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

No. It's important that users consult with multiple sources and not simply trust us.

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

@wbnns

rather than inferring with the alert headline that Bitcoin shouldn't be used after July 31 for an indefinite period of time.

Oh, sorry, I replied to that on your review comments so it got threaded rather than put into the main thread: "I think the current title is better because it describes the consequence in plain English rather than the cause in technical jargon."

Would adding "temporarily" in there be acceptable to you?

Warning: Bitcoin may be temporarily unsafe to use starting July 31st

(emphasis just for illustration here; won't be in the headline)

Contributor

harding commented Jul 12, 2017

@wbnns

rather than inferring with the alert headline that Bitcoin shouldn't be used after July 31 for an indefinite period of time.

Oh, sorry, I replied to that on your review comments so it got threaded rather than put into the main thread: "I think the current title is better because it describes the consequence in plain English rather than the cause in technical jargon."

Would adding "temporarily" in there be acceptable to you?

Warning: Bitcoin may be temporarily unsafe to use starting July 31st

(emphasis just for illustration here; won't be in the headline)

@wbnns

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wbnns

wbnns Jul 12, 2017

Member

@harding Regarding the title, if we focus on what it is and provide a few sentences at the beginning of the alert explaining, I think it will be more helpful to users:

Warning: Potential disruptive chain split on July 31st, 2017

Member

wbnns commented Jul 12, 2017

@harding Regarding the title, if we focus on what it is and provide a few sentences at the beginning of the alert explaining, I think it will be more helpful to users:

Warning: Potential disruptive chain split on July 31st, 2017

@achow101

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@achow101

achow101 Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

If this alert is to be about potential chain forks happening soon in general, then we need to include information about BIP 91 (implemented in segwit2x). BIP 91 requires 269 of the last 269 blocks. Since BIP 91 has already started, there could be many mini-forks that happen between now and August 1st.

Contributor

achow101 commented Jul 12, 2017

If this alert is to be about potential chain forks happening soon in general, then we need to include information about BIP 91 (implemented in segwit2x). BIP 91 requires 269 of the last 269 blocks. Since BIP 91 has already started, there could be many mini-forks that happen between now and August 1st.

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

@wbnns I dropped the term "split" from the title, calling it just a network disruption, and added a link to our section about confirmation scores.

I think putting technobabble in the banner and the beginning of the article would just confuse non-technical people into thinking those things are important, when they aren't. What's important is that Bitcoin will be unsafe to use starting 8/1 00:00 UTC until the outcome is clear.

Contributor

harding commented Jul 12, 2017

@wbnns I dropped the term "split" from the title, calling it just a network disruption, and added a link to our section about confirmation scores.

I think putting technobabble in the banner and the beginning of the article would just confuse non-technical people into thinking those things are important, when they aren't. What's important is that Bitcoin will be unsafe to use starting 8/1 00:00 UTC until the outcome is clear.

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

@achow101 I was thinking that we didn't need an alert for that, given BIP91 requires about 80% of hashrate to signal onchain, more than 90% of hashrate has verbally agreed, and the only change any miner needs to make in the short term once BIP91 activates is setting bit 1 in their block headers---a change most of them can make without upgrading their underlying node.

Given that, I expected it wouldn't be much more turbulent than an old IsSuperMajority soft fork, with maximum fork lengths of fewer than 6 blocks with >99% probability.

And of course, that all assumes that BIP91 reaches 80% before August 1st. Currently, no one is signaling it.[1]

Were you thinking differently?

[1]

$ height=$( bitcoin-cli getblockchaininfo | jq .blocks ) ; for i in $( seq $((height-100)) $height ) ; do bitcoin-cli getblock $( bitcoin-cli getblockhash $i ) | jq .versionHex ; done | sort | uniq -c
     51 "20000000"
     50 "20000002"
Contributor

harding commented Jul 12, 2017

@achow101 I was thinking that we didn't need an alert for that, given BIP91 requires about 80% of hashrate to signal onchain, more than 90% of hashrate has verbally agreed, and the only change any miner needs to make in the short term once BIP91 activates is setting bit 1 in their block headers---a change most of them can make without upgrading their underlying node.

Given that, I expected it wouldn't be much more turbulent than an old IsSuperMajority soft fork, with maximum fork lengths of fewer than 6 blocks with >99% probability.

And of course, that all assumes that BIP91 reaches 80% before August 1st. Currently, no one is signaling it.[1]

Were you thinking differently?

[1]

$ height=$( bitcoin-cli getblockchaininfo | jq .blocks ) ; for i in $( seq $((height-100)) $height ) ; do bitcoin-cli getblock $( bitcoin-cli getblockhash $i ) | jq .versionHex ; done | sort | uniq -c
     51 "20000000"
     50 "20000002"
@achow101

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@achow101

achow101 Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

@harding I was thinking that even though 80+% of the hash rate has verbally agreed to support BIP 91, given the low window and threshold, BIP 91 could activate with less than 80% hash rate support just due to luck and variation. My concern is that if BIP 91 did activate, even with 80% hash rate support, there is still 20% that are not supporting it, and that could cause problems. With the prevalence (still) of spy mining (aka SPV mining), we could have ourselves a repeat of the July 2015 fork which happened when less than 5% of the hash rate was not supporting BIP 66.

Contributor

achow101 commented Jul 12, 2017

@harding I was thinking that even though 80+% of the hash rate has verbally agreed to support BIP 91, given the low window and threshold, BIP 91 could activate with less than 80% hash rate support just due to luck and variation. My concern is that if BIP 91 did activate, even with 80% hash rate support, there is still 20% that are not supporting it, and that could cause problems. With the prevalence (still) of spy mining (aka SPV mining), we could have ourselves a repeat of the July 2015 fork which happened when less than 5% of the hash rate was not supporting BIP 66.

@wbnns

@harding We still need to update the banner.

Show outdated Hide outdated _alerts/2017-07-12-potential-split.md
@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

This post will require substantial rewriting to address @achow101's concerns. I will work on that tomorrow and address some of @wbnns's points then.

Contributor

harding commented Jul 12, 2017

This post will require substantial rewriting to address @achow101's concerns. I will work on that tomorrow and address some of @wbnns's points then.

@achow101

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@achow101

achow101 Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

@harding Maybe you can just add a paragraph that mentions that BIP 91 could be a concern, but since no one is actually mining it now, it isn't all that important. We can update later once segwit2x actually releases software with all of their changes or once BIP 91 is actively being mined.

Contributor

achow101 commented Jul 12, 2017

@harding Maybe you can just add a paragraph that mentions that BIP 91 could be a concern, but since no one is actually mining it now, it isn't all that important. We can update later once segwit2x actually releases software with all of their changes or once BIP 91 is actively being mined.

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

@achow101

How about this at the end of the opening section:

Note: there is a chance a milder level of disruption could start
between now and {{start}}. If that is the case, this post will be
updated with details.

Contributor

harding commented Jul 12, 2017

@achow101

How about this at the end of the opening section:

Note: there is a chance a milder level of disruption could start
between now and {{start}}. If that is the case, this post will be
updated with details.

@achow101

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@achow101

achow101 Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

@harding

That looks good. Perhaps mention BIP 91 or segwit2x in that?

Contributor

achow101 commented Jul 12, 2017

@harding

That looks good. Perhaps mention BIP 91 or segwit2x in that?

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

@achow101 I tried to keep the post non-technical by not mentioning BIP148 or other details that are already known by the people who can understand them. I think BIP91/segwit2x fits in with that.

What do you think? I admit, I think maybe we could add a "see also" section at the bottom that links to some non-technical and medium-technical news stories, like the story stickied in /r/Bitcoin right now.

Contributor

harding commented Jul 12, 2017

@achow101 I tried to keep the post non-technical by not mentioning BIP148 or other details that are already known by the people who can understand them. I think BIP91/segwit2x fits in with that.

What do you think? I admit, I think maybe we could add a "see also" section at the bottom that links to some non-technical and medium-technical news stories, like the story stickied in /r/Bitcoin right now.

@achow101

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@achow101

achow101 Jul 12, 2017

Contributor

@harding Ah, I see. Since none of the BIPs are actually mentioned, then that text is fine then.

Contributor

achow101 commented Jul 12, 2017

@harding Ah, I see. Since none of the BIPs are actually mentioned, then that text is fine then.

@wbnns

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wbnns

wbnns Jul 12, 2017

Member

@harding Thanks for the revisions. The remaining ones are:

  1. Update/revise the banner text to more closely match the alert title (I mentioned some suggestions) and remove the "click here" (provided several linked citations why we shouldn't do that, also many of our users can't click since they a on mobile/tablets)
  2. Add note about volatility
  3. Revise wording in the After the event section (left comment with suggested change)
Member

wbnns commented Jul 12, 2017

@harding Thanks for the revisions. The remaining ones are:

  1. Update/revise the banner text to more closely match the alert title (I mentioned some suggestions) and remove the "click here" (provided several linked citations why we shouldn't do that, also many of our users can't click since they a on mobile/tablets)
  2. Add note about volatility
  3. Revise wording in the After the event section (left comment with suggested change)
@luke-jr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@luke-jr

luke-jr Jul 13, 2017

Contributor

The reason the part about sending is insufficient, is that if there is a split, each chain will likely vary in value, and users probably only want to send coins on one chain and not the other, if they send at all.

Contributor

luke-jr commented Jul 13, 2017

The reason the part about sending is insufficient, is that if there is a split, each chain will likely vary in value, and users probably only want to send coins on one chain and not the other, if they send at all.

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Jul 13, 2017

Contributor

@luke-jr excellent point, thank you! How about this as a rephrasing:

Try not to send any payments. During the event there may be two or
more different types of bitcoin and you may send all of the different
types to a recipient who only expects one type. This would benefit the
recipient at your expense.

Contributor

harding commented Jul 13, 2017

@luke-jr excellent point, thank you! How about this as a rephrasing:

Try not to send any payments. During the event there may be two or
more different types of bitcoin and you may send all of the different
types to a recipient who only expects one type. This would benefit the
recipient at your expense.

harding added some commits Jul 13, 2017

Alerts: BIP148/92: change title over objection
Note: I object to this change, which I think makes the alert less clear,
less forceful, and degrades alert usability.  I make this change only
because the Bitcoin.org site maintainer insists upon it.
@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Jul 13, 2017

Contributor

Pushed three commits.

@wbnns I mentioned the volatility risk. I also made the title change, even though I object to both parts of that request. I did not make the change to the part about consulting multiple sources per my previous reply to you; you may suggest alternative phrasing, but I will in no case revise the document to suggest Bitcoin.org as a single authoritative source for whether or not the event is over. I had only a spectators' view of the Ethereum hard fork, but there were a lot of people in that case blindly trusting the Ethereum Foundation and a handful of other insider sources when they said ETH-HF had won. I think we should try to make Bitcoin better than that by encouraging people to check multiple sources.

I also added the send warning based on @luke-jr's useful criticism.

I will not be making any further edits for at least 12 hours.

Edit: I also updated my preview.

Contributor

harding commented Jul 13, 2017

Pushed three commits.

@wbnns I mentioned the volatility risk. I also made the title change, even though I object to both parts of that request. I did not make the change to the part about consulting multiple sources per my previous reply to you; you may suggest alternative phrasing, but I will in no case revise the document to suggest Bitcoin.org as a single authoritative source for whether or not the event is over. I had only a spectators' view of the Ethereum hard fork, but there were a lot of people in that case blindly trusting the Ethereum Foundation and a handful of other insider sources when they said ETH-HF had won. I think we should try to make Bitcoin better than that by encouraging people to check multiple sources.

I also added the send warning based on @luke-jr's useful criticism.

I will not be making any further edits for at least 12 hours.

Edit: I also updated my preview.

@wbnns

wbnns approved these changes Jul 13, 2017

@achow101

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@achow101

achow101 Jul 13, 2017

Contributor

LGTM

Contributor

achow101 commented Jul 13, 2017

LGTM

@wbnns

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wbnns

wbnns Jul 13, 2017

Member

@harding Thanks for the updates and also for spending time to help users be aware with the alert.

I did not make the change to the part about consulting multiple sources per my previous reply to you; you may suggest alternative phrasing, but I will in no case revise the document to suggest Bitcoin.org as a single authoritative source for whether or not the event is over.

Regarding the above, no one said Bitcoin.org was a single authoritative source so don't worry about that, but if an alert is getting posted that millions of the site's own visitors are going to see (2,000,000+ people visited the site last month), then we also have a responsibility to let them know how to determine if it's over beyond telling them to go read the news.

@Cobra-Bitcoin mentioned getting this up today and we've done some revisions so I'm going to merge this.

I will submit a PR for the above change about referencing the alert for future updates and anyone else please feel free to open an issue or submit a PR with additional changes to the wording, if they'd like to do so.

Member

wbnns commented Jul 13, 2017

@harding Thanks for the updates and also for spending time to help users be aware with the alert.

I did not make the change to the part about consulting multiple sources per my previous reply to you; you may suggest alternative phrasing, but I will in no case revise the document to suggest Bitcoin.org as a single authoritative source for whether or not the event is over.

Regarding the above, no one said Bitcoin.org was a single authoritative source so don't worry about that, but if an alert is getting posted that millions of the site's own visitors are going to see (2,000,000+ people visited the site last month), then we also have a responsibility to let them know how to determine if it's over beyond telling them to go read the news.

@Cobra-Bitcoin mentioned getting this up today and we've done some revisions so I'm going to merge this.

I will submit a PR for the above change about referencing the alert for future updates and anyone else please feel free to open an issue or submit a PR with additional changes to the wording, if they'd like to do so.

@wbnns wbnns merged commit d71d644 into bitcoin-dot-org:master Jul 13, 2017

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
@microguy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@microguy

microguy Jul 13, 2017

Bitcoin land just keeps getting weirder and weirder.

microguy commented on 9ddfa8d Jul 13, 2017

Bitcoin land just keeps getting weirder and weirder.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment