On Tuesday 25 April 2017 6:28:14 PM Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...shaolinfry:uasegwit-f
> > lagday
> >
> > I believe this approach would satisfy the more measured approach expected
> > for Bitcoin and does not have the issues you brought up about BIP148.
>
> I have not reviewed it carefully yet, but I agree that it addresses my
> main concern!  I think this is a much better approach. Thanks.

FWIW, I disagree in this case. I think given the circumstances, if we are
going to do a UASF for segwit at all, we need a clearly decisive outcome,
which is given by BIP 148. Using the approach in BIP 8 makes sense in many
cases, but in this case, it is liable to simply create a prolonged uncertainty
where nobody knows the outcome when segwit's rules are challenged by a
malicious miner.

If BIP 148 fails to achieve widespread support, we could do a BIP 8-based UASF
with Segwit v2 (along with some other changes I suggested in the other
thread), but I think the tradeoffs right now favour BIP 148 as the best UASF
deployment.

Luke

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