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 220FB720; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 13:18:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f171.google.com (mail-qk0-f171.google.com [209.85.220.171]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82AA3147; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 13:18:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-f171.google.com with SMTP id g195so14036002qke.2; Sat, 01 Apr 2017 06:18:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Sblz0Nih1p02FSpoNiOaC7I7l2vep3ehX1sRhu+RvBU=; b=mP9t44NLd+AICKeXxbHNR/S/QWxrUq9CSKI0gQkTjpW7BaLvEGEZK8dJJv0WGC69BJ 7n32fa1l1TEhV8/ANnZM6VimoRfawxeu7qPLyIBevjbkt8uCVeNCNHTVbBJj8nBXbqeW EB3A/ilwkFHnL6qGogl0v+XfATsinpwoCC9eD4+WkasEB6gQoK6igx6HY5X6YkdIt8fm 6Z0/oOKyEO+e5QK8V4wkqkOz6Aj7e799qvT4fCEkFeRuLRjtdFzkG0oXeTkHkV9NOcBT ii9wFXV8GcX/QRoCnyqmHav00taNZF6jmI+CmX0xywkQA1OwGeg1DVApuVGn/ulohM5D lQQw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=Sblz0Nih1p02FSpoNiOaC7I7l2vep3ehX1sRhu+RvBU=; b=Qzk2gqxZ/rCXng66UjXK4+5rQ96nwgJ3bOY6LAh0zfK4esnS9AjS8AL7qlP3O4BJoS +CvnKnIaF4SWKyoV9rmIo7AzbDIR5hGbZRQqsCqTJlx6KIN9NiGc6WETULoxbHd80IHT g5VVMV6BFNN2ZUBMVSDUn7NQ1+EZKoIUl55lGNFMeined1YyPDrCTCD4smG1h7q//Vgz xjWt5wTLtoUjJKVczjDLmTC188+GZsiFRLewbMRjCcvKtBBLV+dRULh5r+TsZcxGrUXz G9bSugtPF39yi+SWNwbQXJUe3n7fKW/f73Gy6jy/EMLB7i7pnMqut78c7c00u9P+VHu7 mHrA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2OmmwIaoCeyyXmBuLnFtauqR346RnsKSaNPHiEwluilBzQDeJIT2Fy8IDfZ1dhDpwifYOZjqfwRLsL8w== X-Received: by 10.55.115.65 with SMTP id o62mr6747153qkc.286.1491052698569; Sat, 01 Apr 2017 06:18:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.132.102 with HTTP; Sat, 1 Apr 2017 06:18:18 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: bitcoin-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org From: Adam Back Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 15:18:18 +0200 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 Cc: bitcoin-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: [bitcoin-dev] hard-fork "X+Y" compromise discussion re-run 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: Sat, 01 Apr 2017 13:18:20 -0000 I agree with everything Matt said. This "X+Y" "compromise" is not a new proposal and has been hashed over multiple times in the past dating back to at least fall 2015, ignores basically all design considerations and research over the last years, doesn't understand the real-politic of the delays, and so doesn't even help in the political domain. I have taken the liberty of making a reddit thread with some of the previous explainers about why this doesn't work in practice (even ignoring all politics and hypothetically assuming it was a great all-new idea), let the discussion commence! https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/62rrlv/how_about_a_new_compromise_activate_the_existing/ UASF is a more logical step, than these "X+Y" politically motivated hard-forks, though UASF has risks vs SegWit BIPs in flight, the delay and risk is far lower than political hard-forks. I have set the reply-to to bitcoin-discuss. Adam