[bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF
erik at q32.com
Wed Apr 19 16:17:39 UTC 2017
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
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> 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.
> 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.
>> 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.
> 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.
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitcoin-dev