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 3689AA88 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 18:50:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f172.google.com (mail-ua0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 861D31CE for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 18:50:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f172.google.com with SMTP id q26so58840230uaa.0 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 11:50:19 -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=9yB1MdLJoQiyQeWhsFUCoB+9mPTm1mL1u4kdQsxPgp8=; b=ZcFturjjgHZvEEgxXFjXCNIIJvv1OauMYoiiMMnn0s7D2eLvAX6a7Ilk9yP653wJbp f0QhB3FWVQovsq+q3Vb3HS8RxX42Ndr6iWcpmyPkqHS3nsQaXuh15eR/JgULopHCjS7j lM/HbeP8/p+KE/M9HlkuG6s7OfDyz+tdNH6G0uAG4KpcKZqHS9Gi96nDoiQLtjgl1GyL wU9amVbGvPLTkhtfjDZQRTd1Tzj0tmoKUGzKgKAwTJeyDoAWv4NertL0w+Ueb30QoGgo foHLK8zis2YvtEsgPv6TztN0NUc64JF+LPbMThAszcVSVNOAik597l3QGi67E/IQeQvX lQrg== 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=9yB1MdLJoQiyQeWhsFUCoB+9mPTm1mL1u4kdQsxPgp8=; b=aArqfIvVrFLhuLk5VADDc9sVOFpH3iP0H0XrN/xEw3ETiHySgxDSVmuF/GS5Wf9bs8 0H+kQNJ8AWu26FB67MwWxekC4X61dp/FTK+Nk+XC0VpRRM8WygILw6k7RJbny8b3jppJ lqccdJuRdz5tj7rnrILk9lxPHoBm6meURRzooACmpmzsuSuWFJRgVzflyYOb/p83L0WW 5tJxa8de/84tgvHq77ZkhgobsEacAP+oJkKTgt+m7NrwmHLXUJp0IxsqPgXe/iw/lBdK 2XeqU4M5gt3ZGmPrNLO60izinQJqGO2j7JW+Hv4Sq9JIELjLmax3bttgoHTY1NLskQZg 2gYQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4Y/O/z6yrTwpYRKGOdW77zAmuRLe8jQlEATYzs23UsDNXLfxGg 7PmwrzyWlSO6ghpRaGEFkrTWMfDZWA== X-Received: by 10.176.9.129 with SMTP id x1mr5450821uag.96.1492282218764; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 11:50:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.94.132 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 11:50:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Gregory Maxwell Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 18:50:17 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: AxSrKY8vA2uaRbkzd379TEZEjEs Message-ID: To: Mark Friedenbach Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403043c4d308de507054d390731 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, 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: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 18:50:20 -0000 --f403043c4d308de507054d390731 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@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. --f403043c4d308de507054d390731 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitc= oin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>= wrote:
triggering BIP141 activation, and therefore not enab= ling the new=20 consensus rules on already deployed full nodes. BIP148 is making an=20 explicit choice to favor dragging along those users which have upgraded=20 to BIP141 support over those miners who have failed to upgrade.
<= /div>

I do not follow= the argument that a critical design feature of a particular "user act= ivated soft fork" could be that it is users don't need to be invol= ved.=C2=A0 If the goal is user activation I would think that the expectatio= n 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.
=C2=A0
On an aside, I'm somewhat disappointed that you have decided to make a=20 public statement against the UASF proposal. Not because we disagree --=20 that is fine -- but because any UASF must be a grassroots effort and=20 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.
=
=C2=A0
--f403043c4d308de507054d390731--