[bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF
alp.bitcoin at gmail.com
Thu Apr 20 14:23:40 UTC 2017
A WTXID commitment would (likely) need to be a UASF.
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 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.
> 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
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitcoin-dev