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 E4D4F279 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 14:54:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-yw0-f178.google.com (mail-yw0-f178.google.com [209.85.161.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CAAF79 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 14:54:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-f178.google.com with SMTP id u70so1354908ywe.2 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 07:54:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rgrant-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=Zox/kB2vyHEPzejtuEW0nN2g5YXIK/uZa3NXihdhpik=; b=gQyMoJC4aZAcq1JMeqbppKZgHsthtCAx78waCyTLhYh37ORORr+aFJuUNtVI4Bn68r lwgl6aOZROa7LhiZZMtqcIh+OQKHcgd7LvYdN2KbpTafrqmCuHnGjPF5D9J192vlKV1S f05cbgJ0CLYf1AxrTX2bvFKHlZsNVx1FFGyXSD2VHH1GflCiliV3OsO55JHeOlL4SbkM 1xceucFD+P10AyVAwRrIolGCJJk5/UraITn6BQN9K/6Uvif/3UiBpGCpwzp2GcXfNNM5 CmYa0BunsISzK6lyRgEGq5QrEMzLhgmelwQM4siI31bAu6NzZKk7OTZ+xKuWLzMSK/Pz lN/w== 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=Zox/kB2vyHEPzejtuEW0nN2g5YXIK/uZa3NXihdhpik=; b=QNVCYeuuCBhJgk9gKF0Q0KKew3oJdUM9zBcfm7Iz+tiaJOU5QW4dfZSmDRPxHiRehp U+ggVsUQ5XOLEtX8ldZReQmQ/z1mBCP05KMVQ7dSWWCuSdn2on+PHNeuO1AW/T2kvDha VIFvzZjXcE+ZtS3N+B01DwVYBfGFkUkZn2qf39ETMGuc/lhffXUYY3ZEXMLwV7vHir37 cghZScF4m6L5d/4waEIXDAb5mHvG9YkK7c8lIUzP/A+fZSow2+hXBwOq0YkAKChQA2zj LFSlJrkmurDjUT3dHNqHGU1yOJ1/z6Ib06dpPyymIga9pJ6bBoVswHekHkv/CJu73Q3p BT5A== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7l85sz8jkEqI1go4O4Gfl7S9JqEhW8CvhMwLmPsAFiv3Ect1gs TPvmHIggVBI7t33/xpKhljba+sTMkg== X-Received: by 10.13.204.135 with SMTP id o129mr3098634ywd.251.1492268071502; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 07:54:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: rgrant@rgrant.org Received: by 10.37.179.22 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 07:54:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Ryan Grant Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 09:54:00 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: sZcMI3nmU-ZWOUBcYCVuWva8mvE Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org 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: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 14:54:33 -0000 On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev wrote: > The alternative [Greg presents] (new BIP bit) has the clear downside > of not 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. A proposal from yesterday would separate this concern; though not retroactively. One way to name this proposal would be "Catch-All Segwit Activation". "extended BIP9 activation of segwit, for legacy nodes" https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/014160.html If this release valve exists, then discussions (such as this thread) can get back to focusing on finding the safest incentive-compatible transitions, with time improving the situation instead of making it worse.