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 BBB66B5E for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:28:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f177.google.com (mail-ua0-f177.google.com [209.85.217.177]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA75126A for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:28:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f177.google.com with SMTP id 110so38402794uas.3 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:28:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=3whKbYLB8eYcAQZCGB5SOPrMP90JrPaz8IgkZbu2Fgw=; b=mRPSS/h92L2W4E+01vbLDgutmIiAUzmqR9/jafGYGxcOZZrqGMEIwEWTqFDcPCqCu0 7XIVOFnVGldMcEQ5DaHl7HXI4FpvLSoSp3nQGC+7YOuvxg+PF/b5emrapGFN1Tb3esjA yNHyrzfwCZoNw8TWXzk7JWep+7g+nEglTCeQqlfzdvgBRZsJVMStV2aVXsMUDyJjO+lp e+oMPxO0GLq1kcT4zWM1/3riJMzJ4dOazh/+FYswQhqqXzWru6A5fsxBV93zZcYhZRdD lJ+G7SGwnvReZZ24cJttaqwQWEwnGkPIv38XZxwlHYAY5u9/G61Nz+S/+UBAjWYICaXM PuGw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3whKbYLB8eYcAQZCGB5SOPrMP90JrPaz8IgkZbu2Fgw=; b=i4wpII/b389dl/ow/ZMPUEg8R1zswma4Jh966Sr7WCM64ReGAlxfh+S9pytF5fTgzP UyIlvBeUprvmoVStXtWavpITrmU3/tdVKVv3M4fVs6MEPscwnT3l60NWxAcHHkA3hmB/ rDT+ksSSRElWkZtS4S18DRs9T7G6KeyqEzmfmgqkhbzTTKnd3bdlPVzFgQg05jU84KXv vQJKKgKceQ9tm1a333QXARLBVOCm/o0fmKgY24tdw77NU5eMbDLpMePLAz51U7wMRodc i/64ZA+Goaid3yA0GMe4kE5sPLsp/DBOdsdcpSXBz3+mj3k69Y4CkmKaXRkj0nRD6LlJ EeWw== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7GApyLdoffOgVryaBzO18JysGOGtOjV8wtDlZSf8zXp1Ebsu1N QmrT/uzXg6H/VuiHRzEbXJrw76ivKA== X-Received: by 10.176.80.16 with SMTP id b16mr7400992uaa.103.1493144895124; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:28:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.94.132 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:28:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Gregory Maxwell Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:28:14 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: -hFqEJVhCAwLsw5nEc2PZ3hAOSQ Message-ID: To: shaolinfry Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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 18:28:16 -0000 On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 6:39 PM, shaolinfry wrote: > I agree with much of your thoughts. I originally started working on a > generalized way to deploy user activated soft forks, in a way that leveraged > BIP9 to allow for optional faster MASF activation. BIP148 came about as a > way to satify many people's frustrations about the current segwit > activation. I have said several times in various places that the proposal > requires a very high amount of consensus that needs to be present to make > actual deployment feasible. BIP148 is certainly not what a normal UASF would > or should look like. > > I remain convinced the community very much wants segwit activated and that > the UASF movement in general has gained a lot of traction. While support for > BIP148 is surprisingly high, there are definitely important players who > support UASF in general but do not like BIP148 approach (which you rightly > point out is a UASF to force a MASF). [...] > With BIP8 we could perform a UASF segwit deployment. Due to some > complexities in the peering logic, I recommend a new deployment with a fresh > bit that starts right after November 15th (when BIP9 segwit timesout) with a > BIP8 timeout for April 2018. The code can deployed much earlier. For example > if code was deployed today, it would give the economy a year to upgrade. > Activation could still occur safely by MASF any time from now until April > 2018 (SEGWIT until Nov, then UASEGWIT from Nov until April 2018). > > I am still working on the finer implementation details, but you can see a > rough draft from this diff (which includes BIP8 in the first commit, and the > proposed bip-segwit-uasf in the second commit). > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...shaolinfry:uasegwit-flagday > > 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.