I'm not sure either. I can't control anyone other than myself. I think (and Luke has also stated on IRC) that trying a UASF (LOT=true) during a "Speedy Trial" deployment would be crazy. I would certainly recommend no one tries that but I can't stop anyone. I'll repeat that soft forks have and always will contain some limited chain split risk regardless of activation mechanism. I think you are well intentioned but I'm not sure if you've fully grasped that yet. Maybe you have and I'm missing something.
> Worse, because the obvious alternative after a three month activation failure is a significant delay prior to activation, the vocal UASF minority may be encouraged to pursue such a route to avoid such a delay.
Again I can only speak for myself but I wouldn't support a UASF until this "fail fast" Speedy Trial has completed and failed. Luke agrees with that and other people (eg proofofkeags) on the ##uasf IRC channel have also supported this "Speedy Trial" proposal. If you want me (or anyone else for that matter) to guarantee there won't be an attempted UASF during a Speedy Trial deployment obviously nobody can do that. All I can say is that personally I won't support one.
> One alternative may be to reduce the signaling windows involved and start slightly later. Instead of the likelihood of failure growing on the horizon, simply have two signaling windows (maybe two weeks, maybe a moth each?). In order to ensure success remains likely, begin them somewhat later after software release to give pools and miners a chance to configure their mining software in advance.
The parameters for Speedy Trial are being hammered out on IRC as we speak. I'd encourage you to engage with those discussions. I'd really like to avoid a scenario where we have broad consensus on the details of Speedy Trial and then you come out the woodwork weeks later with either an alternative proposal or a criticism for how the details of Speedy Trial were finalized.
I've read your email as you're concerned about a UASF during a Speedy Trial deployment. Other than that I think (?) you support it and you are free to join the discussion on IRC if you have particular views on parameters. Personally I don't think those parameters should be chosen assuming there will be a UASF during the deployment but you can argue that case on IRC if you wish. All proposals you have personally put forward suffer from chain split risk in the face of a competing incompatible activation mechanism.
--
Michael Folkson
Email:
michaelfolkson@gmail.comKeybase: michaelfolkson
PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3