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 71FA8AB9 for ; Tue, 2 May 2017 16:54:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f178.google.com (mail-qk0-f178.google.com [209.85.220.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C114B1F6 for ; Tue, 2 May 2017 16:54:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-f178.google.com with SMTP id u68so38229797qkd.0 for ; Tue, 02 May 2017 09:54:36 -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=wjaZ4YJXzdcQMUh65r9Okh1hogt801YhvOt4NOGkaBA=; b=tNU82NjtN4sPfExE3VNJuTH1/lNAt+QZcsPNprNDLg4LBvsiaA/F1JcuHtse6vP9KQ v5Ojj0JtDfsZuRMQMIVEr9bsAnqXx199QG7F4cSAob6VOXsjEBI3W7zr9e9dUEplmtlZ qUoWVPATGSTC+39RZETCQbidYY5KcXBoyVuw7JfFJosCBPpYXC1MZRZtNOxoJn42qB6i XRbbT+EXGqVdtExkbHq0Sxr5i6IwL1q61aqcx72N7LF28n3Mlwgl7yWqDwgY4MxHYxjO Ayod3uYammL/MTjSWtWJpp4Af39Z1EDWbTbtFDLdNrItj293yBujMyQbSnnt0thAvpgt wQlA== 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=wjaZ4YJXzdcQMUh65r9Okh1hogt801YhvOt4NOGkaBA=; b=mI8ya3gdA0tifq0XDDh5dw5bI3F9jF9dUzrRHGdoLsB5BDFLL38kcGno1Jbp7RkcPv iY07sntzydq5OQtHOyrJU9AaxP8uc6vyOtjQ4OC8x8PVDSRXkVi0AXQg3AUY7wG9r4Ct S1ZEpPpwDoIotbCyNTf3kbsYmocxen3qasZBmE9ufj3wh6SnRUKSfFphA20YSkBWNPNZ e9/PvjxXS8LgqJy4IqozoWB9bmGFXzRyEKf4IG6RJr7TkR8KoCovYF6pRG1so0a6gIfa YnOYMiz0b4Oq5L6R6bhhXsnnHk/L/k0edSgovVkIboGCWzGRYcL9GtCWthmdWjeqAR+C ui4w== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4VG2JDriMhQMrSxbFawvKitLf5zVbv4Jwa9Sh79yseff1V+5EC jzCMc2FaPIIIN27FBjffXcx4CGWgUA== X-Received: by 10.55.150.133 with SMTP id y127mr26471132qkd.230.1493744076050; Tue, 02 May 2017 09:54:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: earonesty@gmail.com Received: by 10.200.39.43 with HTTP; Tue, 2 May 2017 09:54:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201704251846.10793.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201704251846.10793.luke@dashjr.org> From: Erik Aronesty Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 12:54:35 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: uO8f479BMPCwrEVjhPdpxmCibYQ Message-ID: To: Luke Dashjr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c07cd4609da66054e8d65c7 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: Tue, 02 May 2017 17:18:07 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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: Tue, 02 May 2017 16:54:37 -0000 --94eb2c07cd4609da66054e8d65c7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 If the flag day for a wtxid commitment is timed before the current segwit period end, I suspect segwit would activate within the current period. On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > 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 > --94eb2c07cd4609da66054e8d65c7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If the flag day for a wtxid commitment is t= imed before the current segwit period end, I suspect segwit would activate = within the current period.

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Luke = Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat= ion.org> wrote:
On Tuesday = 25 April 2017 6:28:14 PM Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > https://github.co= m/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 BIP= 148.
>
> I have not reviewed it carefully yet, but I agree that it addresses my=
> main concern!=C2=A0 I think this is a much better approach. Thanks.
FWIW, I disagree in this case. I think given the circumstances, if w= e 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<= br> cases, but in this case, it is liable to simply create a prolonged uncertai= nty
where nobody knows the outcome when segwit's rules are challenged by a<= br> malicious miner.

If BIP 148 fails to achieve widespread support, we could do a BIP 8-based U= ASF
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 UAS= F
deployment.

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

--94eb2c07cd4609da66054e8d65c7--