[bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF
erik at q32.com
Thu Apr 20 15:48:21 UTC 2017
Bitcoin must level the playing field for mining or it is fundamentally
broken. And there are two obvious solutions:
1. WTXID commitment has as a flag day upgrade. It's a fix to a fairly
serious security issue - made even worse by the existence of patents on the
2. Embed the code for performing a covert ASICBOOST into Bitcoin core's
reference implementation. But, since this would violate patents held in
China and the U.S., it could be a problem.
Of these, I think the first should be far less controversial.
One or the other must be done - if we can't fix security and licensing
problems in Bitcoin, what can we fix?
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Alphonse Pace <alp.bitcoin at gmail.com>
> 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