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 A1BA0B7A for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 03:29:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f181.google.com (mail-ua0-f181.google.com [209.85.217.181]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12B36125 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 03:29:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f181.google.com with SMTP id q26so53777503uaa.0 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:29:11 -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=sG3wTX+yqE9KNIojn/3ceXtcquYj6bs2fqwmVFCvHXE=; b=RQLWcAQoheOqSacMQncAgdszMUaKzz9gSQvs7X4ciWP5VoiOCfRxW+F1GTcrVUtqAy ggrp0svyvSNmm7z8w3y0YSTAiSC68oAnnWU5WjXwZL5qMLOkLtbZUgiZjoZ3AkAlLEUZ ztmb8e9QPqaFl5EnZUCUiLEWL2jHv3wGBEqAsXLnnp25UfqdUjm8g0KI2HomcG9KLyV5 1Bk6I97qIZMuMBKFK6qCeG63bn3ZfhGpcg3LZO+G/Um1kaAr9Xi49eA4+bGc4iPmfkIL eIkCUdHnOhaoJ4/P1ZaxoLBeCb8cvfw0phr6Dw90SbRncbqybKFTeXo1wDdyco8e1dt3 AP6Q== 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=sG3wTX+yqE9KNIojn/3ceXtcquYj6bs2fqwmVFCvHXE=; b=Itl2GNOCEXYEcTnVbCmVLpZTS9AxBK6DNd6SCIYA9X2X3rnQrcjIeNFFfD76UEZHTI KB2L9Bwtg46Koa+dybSu8MOKAjKhGTlYeJ+RtwY/T8GDYg0Ysy/YFDllVFTgnJXCoLJj Js6X0DuvZp/W0PD3Avr1/WtLJs4ULU3opAH80B2E09LGIhkVRwhrQIWMsQX3nazSrQ9u 9RacWtEW6Ty6KKYV5aCf9A608WAT9OFN6NQvmtwMxIwQP9YbkAwciDHoyKc4nQ7QzjQi bAIlS0M5qTWxUt0YcxTTNdbvl9fZWz1/kivTFdeqmJrOStkmEd4MGMVKB9YJLUhQfBxc kqsg== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/79gUagPLl1h0QCtleJzBTVhE/I0UItYYTRe5/SQIfScc3YHt6x S/6xiMcyu30XjvtjCt1xsdhLoPVecg== X-Received: by 10.176.82.241 with SMTP id w46mr5667053uaw.82.1492226951219; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:29:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.94.132 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:29:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Gregory Maxwell Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 03:29:10 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ayicQtmpCSTS17VPoESyymIuNtQ Message-ID: To: Steven Pine 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: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 03:29:12 -0000 On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Regarding this last point I was under the impression that if Segwit did not > activate by November then core was going to move on, is that no longer the Wow. Where did you get that idea? That is _absurd_ and untrue, and I struggle a bit to even comprehend how someone could believe it. It would continue until something clearly better came along or people lost interest in it, why would it be anything else? > census change that was not rolled out and done by the core team? I only > mention this because BIP148, if it goes ahead (and is successful), would be > the first time a consensus change occurs outside of the core developers -- > but again I am not an expert on the history of changes and could be wrong, I There is a definitional issue there. There isn't much of "the core team" there is a lot of amorphous public collaboration; everything ends up being retroactively defined as the core team. With open participation and hundreds of contributors and software running everywhere in the network, its unlikely that someone would advance to the point of being able to make a credible proposal without at some point making some improvement to the project or without the help of someone who has. In some sense you are coming very close to asking for a list of people who have contributed to Bitcoin without contributing to Bitcoin. CLTV was a proposal by Peter Todd whom has done a number of other things in core but AFAIR had no involvement in any prior soft-fork (though perhaps I'm forgetting one?), though he subsequently contributed to BIP66 (which activated before CLTV), and he contributed mostly after-the fact review of segwit. CSV was mostly the work of Mark Friedenbach whom I believe was not involved in any prior or subsequent soft-fork (and whos total contributions to Bitcoin core weigh in at 14 commits over 5 years). > My impression is that the community is ready for this and wants it, and if > that impression is correct it will go ahead. No one knows the future, and > simply assuming it's better to be slow and methodical isn't especially I am not suggesting slow. I am suggesting that we not be outright reckless. Some people are expecting changes which are effectively orders of magnitude faster than changes in centralized systems elsewhere which are far easier and safer to take quickly. (Some more comparatives here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/65bch8/gregory_maxwell_i_do_not_support_the_bip_148_uasf/dg9xfam/ ) > Technology is in someways the history of failure, By all means, take risks-- but you don't get to choose to make other peoples things fail; you certainly don't get to demand their support, though you could try to earn it if you care, by figuring out how to meet their concerns.