[bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF
greg at xiph.org
Sat Apr 15 03:29:10 UTC 2017
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Regarding this last point I was under the impression that if Segwit did not
> activate by November then core was going to move on, is that no longer the
Wow. Where did you get that idea? That is _absurd_ and untrue, and I
struggle a bit to even comprehend how someone could believe it. It
would continue until something clearly better came along or people
lost interest in it, why would it be anything else?
> census change that was not rolled out and done by the core team? I only
> mention this because BIP148, if it goes ahead (and is successful), would be
> the first time a consensus change occurs outside of the core developers --
> but again I am not an expert on the history of changes and could be wrong, I
There is a definitional issue there. There isn't much of "the core
team" there is a lot of amorphous public collaboration; everything
ends up being retroactively defined as the core team. With open
participation and hundreds of contributors and software running
everywhere in the network, its unlikely that someone would advance to
the point of being able to make a credible proposal without at some
point making some improvement to the project or without the help of
someone who has.
In some sense you are coming very close to asking for a list of people
who have contributed to Bitcoin without contributing to Bitcoin.
CLTV was a proposal by Peter Todd whom has done a number of other
things in core but AFAIR had no involvement in any prior soft-fork
(though perhaps I'm forgetting one?), though he subsequently
contributed to BIP66 (which activated before CLTV), and he contributed
mostly after-the fact review of segwit. CSV was mostly the work of
Mark Friedenbach whom I believe was not involved in any prior or
subsequent soft-fork (and whos total contributions to Bitcoin core
weigh in at 14 commits over 5 years).
> My impression is that the community is ready for this and wants it, and if
> that impression is correct it will go ahead. No one knows the future, and
> simply assuming it's better to be slow and methodical isn't especially
I am not suggesting slow. I am suggesting that we not be outright
reckless. Some people are expecting changes which are effectively
orders of magnitude faster than changes in centralized systems
elsewhere which are far easier and safer to take quickly.
(Some more comparatives here:
> Technology is in someways the history of failure,
By all means, take risks-- but you don't get to choose to make other
peoples things fail; you certainly don't get to demand their support,
though you could try to earn it if you care, by figuring out how to
meet their concerns.
More information about the bitcoin-dev