[bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF
steven.pine at gmail.com
Sat Apr 15 04:10:26 UTC 2017
I don't want to be rude and I will refer to your expertise, but segwit does
have a 'time out' as defined in BIP 9 with the date of November 15th? Does
core plan on just releasing another BIP with a new timeout hoping it will
eventually get 95% census?
As for the other point, we can play semantics but that's boring, I guess my
meaning was every census change has gone through a core defined process
(not counting the changes that occurred before there were BIPs and such),
isn't that the case? If the currently discussed UASF goes through it would
seem like the first time census occurred outside core's mailing list of
pull requests, acks, and merge to master, I only note it as a thing of
To be clear, the fast and reckless part for you is the mechanism by which
segwit could possibly be made active? Do you envision a means of segwit
being made consensus that does not have 95% mining support?
I appreciate your time and expertise, and to not take up anymore, back to
lurking i go.
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Gregory Maxwell <greg at xiph.org> wrote:
> 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
> > activate by November then core was going to move on, is that no longer
> 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
> > 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
> > 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitcoin-dev