From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97EB6C0881 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2020 05:59:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FA6784737 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2020 05:59:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Wb2EaL3T38I for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2020 05:59:46 +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 whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E5B2846C0 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2020 05:59:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.lan (unknown [12.190.236.211]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 80C2038A0DEA; Sun, 12 Jan 2020 05:58:37 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan; t=1578808782; bh=pazfth+SV7HS7+dbvtiRZ0c01/ginEAet2doMPVGKPo=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Cc:References:In-Reply-To; b=PiP0bbgp6r694oNugheC0zujtqdZR7zecg0fyHJSBkfHthTObnARkVKD0e+kNVOx3 FowbNBYQs1KpHJ+4FohrRSdKgT5PM2gMkaHmkM1YFcxS5LXn89g18UR0F9yJhhdgYI BNRxz8XfE2ur/b6pEOABP3M0soBn4xFfUaczaBV0= X-Hashcash: 1:25:200112:aj@erisian.com.au::wpMFTWFHA79Wi1R8:akKx= X-Hashcash: 1:25:200112:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::sPjc1XgeWxDzMrMK:a9=XJ X-Hashcash: 1:25:200112:lf-lists@mattcorallo.com::2zi7CUrYS=RZyUwY:i+Sg X-Hashcash: 1:25:200112:jtimon@jtimon.cc::zDebzzb9haDPg3yc:eWogy From: Luke Dashjr To: Anthony Towns Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 05:58:33 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <20200111144207.5xzspeptstspsbsf@erisian.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20200111144207.5xzspeptstspsbsf@erisian.com.au> X-KMail-QuotePrefix: > MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <202001120558.34256.luke@dashjr.org> Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Modern Soft Fork Activation X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 05:59:47 -0000 On Saturday 11 January 2020 14:42:07 Anthony Towns wrote: > the UASF approach had significant potential technical problems > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(potential for long reorgs, p2p network splits) that weren= 't > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0resolved by the time it became active. Long reorgs, only for old nodes, were a possibility, but not a problem. The p2p network split issues WERE resolved well before activation. (In fact, Bitcoin Knots still ships with the general p2p fixes.) > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0neither=20 > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0BIP-148 or BIP-91 gained enough consensus to be supported = in > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0bitcoin core though There was no measurable difference in community support between BIP148 and= =20 Segwit itself, months before BIP148's activation. (There was about 20% that= =20 indicated they would support BIP148 "only if Bitcoin Core releases it", whi= ch=20 IMO "counts" in this context.) The only difference was in the opinions of developers. Basing the decision = to=20 exclude BIP148 as even an *option* on this basis was IMO improper and=20 shouldn't be repeated. The community's readiness to switch to another=20 fork/build for UASFs is also valuable, but shouldn't be necessary. Luke