diff options
| author | Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc> | 2017-05-23 15:20:10 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2017-05-23 13:20:12 +0000 |
| commit | bfb0fb7cf972f4b27bba17df2a277899e865d769 (patch) | |
| tree | d9152b85ea800d3dccb944dd6e6996b75bdbc06c | |
| parent | af3e9f3caf990feec10a7a607f9fb04e57162fc1 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-bfb0fb7cf972f4b27bba17df2a277899e865d769.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-bfb0fb7cf972f4b27bba17df2a277899e865d769.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF
| -rw-r--r-- | 1d/725e1ed9144cfaa5dd0d321978518c97514027 | 105 |
1 files changed, 105 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/1d/725e1ed9144cfaa5dd0d321978518c97514027 b/1d/725e1ed9144cfaa5dd0d321978518c97514027 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b4af1215b --- /dev/null +++ b/1d/725e1ed9144cfaa5dd0d321978518c97514027 @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@ +Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E61C0949 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 23 May 2017 13:20:12 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-vk0-f46.google.com (mail-vk0-f46.google.com + [209.85.213.46]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6892F15B + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 23 May 2017 13:20:12 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by mail-vk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id y190so57866453vkc.1 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 23 May 2017 06:20:12 -0700 (PDT) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; + h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to + :cc; bh=6jf1rpK8J/2fhVFyd8gNWzaKdpnNvqB2wE896uoSjqQ=; + b=L/iBRhc3Qin+2E6N7yw0m2JRaGT9Rz6f+1JgSEKrBLMKyOy3bRGHJh8fxrd6t3Syty + K/Hngu8mTU9HGS56YKn4byahAVTjOKm2VN+RsFL2m6FZAyCl5z64j99j8AYRCxEVZX+i + 93UXOYaisLhu2kKX/I0m7PpF7N7bxqdTSZWOSTDz8m8QNRXnMW+IJURO+Zoz+pgbUPRZ + ng3zTyKZl+kZ0RQlZyfNhn+OTwa+ho5jj9AHD8ganfs/SG6q+zBCeLW/8SOtRUUOptr8 + UCrONVJjGFOA2ngaTIF/IIr19cawMuedb7vvNDHIDy8AoSbMcLrh0gDTPSh8/uIogie7 + HkUA== +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20161025; + h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date + :message-id:subject:to:cc; + bh=6jf1rpK8J/2fhVFyd8gNWzaKdpnNvqB2wE896uoSjqQ=; + b=RGmoOl6MLvK9t2ALMj1OYqRT9WE/5o/4+fp5lQEP0vpJb/DTleV5cRLi9LO2YAvrRu + JksD0okc3GCg/FVW4amicWh1z0ne7/4G3UmxEOm1r+IOUDSnLzhqZEk37zjAitElQoxW + DQTXtekqVp35P7VDpPsKDYQo7B8Hd2aKz+A3CqPLZUfC7Z2e/+dVhlARiGTXSEJBlN+r + ksMAvH77ie6Nt0a2LV2uerdB4zUTD2bBoCLGXc/uQdAOWcZpYPT1q3Fevku0SYkwoEGH + rydN8pn3M6y1h8BHWyijxOp2vqqR1ymNqFlmT8kG8POO/yQLBRTvYlUe5yrpafkivp9t + 5i/Q== +X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDJJ7saKe3CiPPuO9YdawV/vGsyl02udDm6jJiP670FV+MZZaUn + lUzTF4S61KCgoHEijTGuVtuhfQG5OwS7 +X-Received: by 10.31.75.6 with SMTP id y6mr9934752vka.46.1495545611394; Tue, + 23 May 2017 06:20:11 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Received: by 10.31.37.200 with HTTP; Tue, 23 May 2017 06:20:10 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <201705231255.27861.luke@dashjr.org> +References: <CAAS2fgRdSOu8N6L3+fBpnye+rM+W6+F=cePy=9oL4tJuCj=Jsw@mail.gmail.com> + <CAAjy6kC43DX3wpaZ+3skBUO8hVrYt7uNZfw1Ep3GDJs8YA9Gxg@mail.gmail.com> + <CALJw2w54A_SL-p4iUX_bE3CJidPxNhb09On9XfUAYxmpV8ekpQ@mail.gmail.com> + <201705231255.27861.luke@dashjr.org> +From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc> +Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 15:20:10 +0200 +Message-ID: <CABm2gDoebzbBHKQw66NzHwZPTwMONUZXo-mt3YoP03HPaxm1rA@mail.gmail.com> +To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> +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 +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 13:20:13 -0000 + +On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev +<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: +> On Tuesday 23 May 2017 6:30:01 AM Karl Johan Alm via bitcoin-dev wrote: +>> Essentially, if we make a potentially very harmful option easy to +>> enable for users, we are putting them at risk, so yes, this is about +>> protecting users of the base Bitcoin Core implementation. +> +> In this case, NOT enforcing BIP148 puts users at more risk. Since devs are +> divided in opinion, we should at the very least have an option to let users +> decide one way or the other. + +Well, it's putting users at more risk only if for those users who +actively decided to put themselves at risk. +I also feel bip148 is rushed and that makes it more risky. I don't +want to reiterate points other have made but I don't fully agree with +all of them. +I prefer the way it is over the way it was (just activating at a given +date without forcing mining signaling), but I still think it's rushed +and unnecessarily risky (unless activating segwit was urgent, which I +think it's not, no matter how much I want it to become active as soon +as possible). +On the other hand, I support uasf and bip8 to replace bip9 for future +deployments, since bip9 made assumptions that weren't correct (like +assuming miners would always signal changes that don't harm any user +and are good for some of them). +Perhaps bip149 can be modified to activate earlier if the current +proposal is perceived as unnecessarily cautious. + +Luke, I've seen you say in other forums that "bip148 is less risky +than bip149", but I think that's clearly false. + +As a reminder, one of my complains about bip109 was precisely that it +was also rushed in how fast it could activate. + |