<div dir="ltr">A WTXID commitment would (likely) need to be a UASF.<div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>The "UASF movement" seems a bit premature to me - I doubt UASF will be necessary if a WTXID commitment is tried first. I think that should be first-efforts focus.<br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5"><div dir="ltr"><span>On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>></span> wrote:<br></span><div class="gmail_extra"><span><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">triggering BIP141 activation, and therefore not enabling the new
consensus rules on already deployed full nodes. BIP148 is making an
explicit choice to favor dragging along those users which have upgraded
to BIP141 support over those miners who have failed to upgrade.<br></span></div></blockquote></div></span><div class="gmail_quote"><br><div>I do not follow the argument that a critical design feature of a particular "user activated soft fork" could be that it is users don't need to be involved. If the goal is user activation I would think that the expectation would be that the overwhelming majority of users would be upgrading to do it, if that isn't the case, then it isn't really a user activated softfork-- it's something else.<br></div><span><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">On
an aside, I'm somewhat disappointed that you have decided to make a
public statement against the UASF proposal. Not because we disagree --
that is fine -- but because any UASF must be a grassroots effort and
endorsements (or denouncements) detract from that.</span></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>So it has to be supported by the public but I can't say why I don't support it? This seems extremely suspect to me.</div><br><div> </div></div></div></div>
<br></div></div><span class="">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
<br></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>