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 8EF2F4A6 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:49:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qt0-f175.google.com (mail-qt0-f175.google.com [209.85.216.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3976D19B for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:49:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f175.google.com with SMTP id w1so137459803qtg.2 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:49:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=CRlx3bfu6/gTWBHJlU1yNZQGqVIY00Z4Nj6/ntCm7ZA=; b=PhXBdlxaENDWHcZC38VzR5ycTGSphiHKLulIprJWEEPjtcIbUzLQWQdjV+ijmz603x X+Zoy4XBz1qDboG1dfyyn/3V+PpRs61B0MwyOsgXOSWYRPxKZtQ0SPp7F/oYBhDZEE+/ XXIf1YHn2sIT3NBPMiGm/N0VQQrfjM0gzEmnCOkGv9CM8Spdp+Jm/IJvQnHVazTw5eHn 24dtpd9Obzf3Jf2i8NL/9Rt9KgR2H/DuqcY+DzR674jGgJqyoGOzDzWscJxy0wEj6SJg t+UhJhJsZy77Dyi02ixl26q62zSDzXWpSlxuMpjNmD76AWatIXPCO+9qzTxWCszQtYDt tDcQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CRlx3bfu6/gTWBHJlU1yNZQGqVIY00Z4Nj6/ntCm7ZA=; b=pLmDAvCwoAJh+DWB/lwR7u5XC2TKC1reoK7WY5jLo3yANQzj93GY7FcJXwJ4sYg/4V 8YuGRl7S+EfDG8+yrV6zOSFwJRGqkjbVUgN/N3Kr2IN+I1hTGQoNe54V5RD23TilQtmc tmKjZyFzAkXB204YUduJoI0K0xl2eZywBXS/LqoaC4ZmEsIMFChAkCJ+na67+VcDT57I JTcj9TgojksC/8YUE7J9IsW6RXUh0BNkOQU+nwq561CP1WErc06ueVskOruPi0WhUkkB wT+E6n2Sbf9LjgCReDPQgMsSpt/QsL4jT+6mYQWjJfr/HCK4dTAD15mUOXpW+hk8i4Cl 1Eyw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOz89Cld/zzx96iWqPKBMUb0CGzfSM7SNmg0ND11Xxo1vrwx6WWO YMVhaQDoEp4qLp3wNLJkfttiF+kfm7vpu4c= X-Received: by 10.237.33.187 with SMTP id l56mr34745078qtc.165.1497977379443; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:49:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.155.140 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:49:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Hampus_Sj=C3=B6berg?= Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 18:49:38 +0200 Message-ID: To: Erik Aronesty Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1146ebf095c4810552670966" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, 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 Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Miners forced to run non-core code in order to get segwit activated 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, 20 Jun 2017 16:49:40 -0000 --001a1146ebf095c4810552670966 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I don't think it's a huge deal if the miners need to run a non-Core node once the BIP91 deployment of Segwit2x happens. The shift will most likely be temporary. I agree that the "-bip148"-option should be merged, though. 2017-06-20 17:44 GMT+02:00 Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > Are we going to merge BIP91 or a -BIP148 option to core for inclusion in > the next release or so? > > Because a large percentage of miners are indifferent, right now miners > have to choose between BIP148 and Segwit2x if they want to activate Segwit. > > > Should we be forcing miners to choose to run non-core code in order to > activate a popular feature? > > - Erik > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --001a1146ebf095c4810552670966 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't think it's a huge deal if the miners = need to run a non-Core node once the BIP91 deployment of Segwit2x happens. The shift will most likely be temporary.

I agree that the "-bip148"-opt= ion should be merged, though.

2017-06-20 17:44 GMT+02:00 Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev = <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:=
Are we going to merge B= IP91 or a -BIP148 option to core for inclusion in the next release or so? = =C2=A0

Because a large percentage of miners are indifferent, right = now miners have to choose between BIP148 and Segwit2x if they want to activ= ate Segwit. =C2=A0

Should we be forcing miners to choose to run non= -core code in order to activate a popular feature?

- Erik

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--001a1146ebf095c4810552670966--