From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D0E2BCC for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:47:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E3602EC for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:47:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 27D9B38ABA7D; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:46:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:170425:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::GrmKT8LJ=DuSi3YX:aPVFi X-Hashcash: 1:25:170425:greg@xiph.org::cYHN=Hlicn8EQvK6:bYYs6 X-Hashcash: 1:25:170425:shaolinfry@protonmail.ch::zIlPYBAtfFlwWJEH:dX87f From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Gregory Maxwell Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:46:09 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.9.16-gentoo; KDE/4.14.29; x86_64; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201704251846.10793.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:47:40 -0000 On Tuesday 25 April 2017 6:28:14 PM Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...shaolinfry:uasegwit-f > > lagday > > > > I believe this approach would satisfy the more measured approach expected > > for Bitcoin and does not have the issues you brought up about BIP148. > > I have not reviewed it carefully yet, but I agree that it addresses my > main concern! I think this is a much better approach. Thanks. FWIW, I disagree in this case. I think given the circumstances, if we are going to do a UASF for segwit at all, we need a clearly decisive outcome, which is given by BIP 148. Using the approach in BIP 8 makes sense in many cases, but in this case, it is liable to simply create a prolonged uncertainty where nobody knows the outcome when segwit's rules are challenged by a malicious miner. If BIP 148 fails to achieve widespread support, we could do a BIP 8-based UASF with Segwit v2 (along with some other changes I suggested in the other thread), but I think the tradeoffs right now favour BIP 148 as the best UASF deployment. Luke