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.

 

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