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 C44C58A5 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 01:06:24 +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 3E700AC for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 01:06:24 +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 63E8838A16B2; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 01:06:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:170712:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::=P//Q=3oi6z0=dty:Nb4W X-Hashcash: 1:25:170712:sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com::sxCv+3bo0t39gieb:fbTU From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Sergio Demian Lerner Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 01:06:14 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.9.16-gentoo; KDE/4.14.32; 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-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201707120106.16951.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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 01:27:44 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP 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: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 01:06:25 -0000 On Monday 10 July 2017 11:50:33 AM Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Regarding the timeline, its certainly rather short, but also is the UASF > BIP 148 ultimatum. BIP148 began with 8 months lead time, reduced to 5 months from popular request and technical considerations. There is nothing about BIP148 that compels an attempted hardfork 90 days later - that could just as well have been 18 months. > More than 80% of the miners and many users are willing to go in the > Segwit2x direction. With the support and great talent of the Bitcoin Core > developers, Segwit2x activation will not cause any major disruptions. That's not true at all. Based on my observations, only approximately 20% of the community follow Core's technical lead without significant consideration of their own - and who knows if that would change if Core were to suggest clearly-unsafe block size increases, or attempted to force a hardfork against consensus. Even with Core's support, many people would oppose the hardfork attempt, and it would fail. > Without Core, there will be a temporary split. Both sides will have to > hard-fork. Segwit2x's hardfork does not compel the remaining Bitcoin users to also hardfork. > I want a Bitcoin united. But maybe a split of Bitcoin, each side with its > own vision, is not so bad. I concur, but I disagree your approach has any possibility of a united Bitcoin. The only way to get that today, would be to do Segwit+Drivechain, not Segwit+Hardfork. Luke