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 54BAC305 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:17:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f181.google.com (mail-qk0-f181.google.com [209.85.220.181]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E98D1A1 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:17:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-f181.google.com with SMTP id f133so24434964qke.2 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 09:17:40 -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=sdb992rB+HKV+NC/IFPHY7r/zciPVpKmXsXYQcS6wmY=; b=tYu5Hy5krY+p53+YhE/91kZ4HBVNfKFiHWgW190uUJFbcbXPdO581s8Dzc4Qu1SfwK jFuOh7pTfDzxV1cHvS2zaotATw/8IIXqlO6hF4C35XREznxC2cfvttG2JanPwe9ufPy4 0JNgUvvMx8Ky5TbvC7kWeBYHV4kv1s1iDbS82K2Hy2tiNbwQ7uqoOHGjLqwGqMJVcf4P 07uc9OVJM9f4/GTscPLxPl7m8vPW0GGOLp6xyEjq/QZ30KsSoWSztIUD89pydkUANiG9 85Aknk0FlLFnM6fkg/Z4HQdv7fKNMdSbDbcZGuahf+8rCvF9n4XdQ99fmnItE4opVl5X Yafw== 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=sdb992rB+HKV+NC/IFPHY7r/zciPVpKmXsXYQcS6wmY=; b=ghmBHDey2tf3sbmZko3Mz0djofip7zDqO3lYLJeCE0G2ReHWkeRzy6j+mMy3AXN5bH 8MXsrOxyPBG2FL3M1fvmkfRXhz9agi2lpw+j/DWVm1FI3xDxVtMJTrG8BQMsANklwf0K zBOE355WsdA6mz+0O/NQFGm6WqvJvb0pDo2/bOQE3JPVFVb51VSFZ4LXuo+zNTnlGB6Y yvLi1ydR0t3iPsT2K8h2u5Jib/zyGiSTbMTxRlJpPepHUFsnS/7gPnQFI8AOi2nLbJP3 bzpERcoN7w+OuGXCm0bccZorKtDQ/xAwhsxLqEgJDgR9RXJaYH77IjwlA2LKZPtI54JX TDNg== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6KtfGzQpVZu8bGB5zoDGjtlQijoMu3VHNgw52N8lOTxpeRCKoD b3C8yKN4L4mc8TdTFMkn/TvTXREAtA== X-Received: by 10.55.129.134 with SMTP id c128mr3077894qkd.310.1492618659797; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 09:17:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: earonesty@gmail.com Received: by 10.200.0.146 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 09:17:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Erik Aronesty Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:17:39 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9TA-4D5HyLmrhRkxfJpub1G2P8U Message-ID: To: Gregory Maxwell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c05751600a914054d875d35 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:45:40 +0000 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: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:17:41 -0000 --94eb2c05751600a914054d875d35 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 The "UASF movement" seems a bit premature to me - I doubt UASF will be necessary if a WTXID commitment is tried first. I think that should be first-efforts focus. On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > 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 > > --94eb2c05751600a914054d875d35 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The "UASF movement" seems a bit premature t= o me - I doubt UASF will be necessary if a WTXID commitment is tried first.= =C2=A0=C2=A0 I think that should be first-efforts focus.

On Sat, Apr 15, 2017= at 2:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin= -dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 1:4= 2 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
triggering BIP141 activation, and therefore not enabling 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 "u= ser activated soft fork" could be that it is users don't need to b= e involved.=C2=A0 If the goal is user activation I would think that the exp= ectation would be that the overwhelming majority of users would be upgradin= g to do it, if that isn't the case, then it isn't really a user act= ivated 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 c= an't say why I don't support it? This seems extremely suspect to me= .

=C2=A0

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


--94eb2c05751600a914054d875d35--