diff options
| author | Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org> | 2017-04-15 09:42:25 -0400 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2017-04-15 13:42:47 +0000 |
| commit | f2af8efe6f6f65fd1f90adf5b081d9350ba1b8dc (patch) | |
| tree | aa271ed8e3b4da9c8df118c6b938e946387a5f84 | |
| parent | 9b8cff5800d661dcbae42ec417d4e8d028f17a40 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-f2af8efe6f6f65fd1f90adf5b081d9350ba1b8dc.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-f2af8efe6f6f65fd1f90adf5b081d9350ba1b8dc.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF
| -rw-r--r-- | 21/a9646046565d28ef12505d0fb1e8217b143630 | 127 |
1 files changed, 127 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/21/a9646046565d28ef12505d0fb1e8217b143630 b/21/a9646046565d28ef12505d0fb1e8217b143630 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d73f9948a --- /dev/null +++ b/21/a9646046565d28ef12505d0fb1e8217b143630 @@ -0,0 +1,127 @@ +Return-Path: <mark@friedenbach.org> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBCD6720 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sat, 15 Apr 2017 13:42:47 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-io0-f170.google.com (mail-io0-f170.google.com + [209.85.223.170]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31D6D79 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sat, 15 Apr 2017 13:42:47 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by mail-io0-f170.google.com with SMTP id o22so2946561iod.3 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sat, 15 Apr 2017 06:42:47 -0700 (PDT) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=friedenbach-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; + h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; + bh=GkVrTr6B7cJ8f6wFaYr8Ewpmlf4MfH1fhWn5AFDwhxA=; + b=OUMOnxVWrKTx5sYLKpO7hC9CZOYDg4Uop9UwJJnyVNMidh83YrU7ma86XkfObpfvav + XwyLOO1nEEGFue+KFH4MKRa3FPVfndMRp7LOWhCIE5Q8ZNBQt3INlz7/HqzkFFnW2HTs + KQ+bIXrA+oG2fgOb/D8MVquJca5cz568ahY+nqtgvf1vdypiKRVfyNVZJugcGQtG5UnH + nkQCrW0jGROYSLoX+2P5Rp1ny9a1LmNFGBLKt+pu7a0FkmVKdwLnbXITZdkC5aP5e5TN + BWwOAtkgdCXW5zGn/3dpqtj8Sc6RNk7ZBdBKV6Damh8b3NcEGCsV4S/Vaf/iGC6wC+hR + Iivw== +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20161025; + h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; + bh=GkVrTr6B7cJ8f6wFaYr8Ewpmlf4MfH1fhWn5AFDwhxA=; + b=oSBuI1LPSZP+qU7v4QjN37TEmZj0Tr5A39hfR1cU7uPb2Mmkq8nLtHP7qOG7MyRpkr + dWhQHaFRCZ4XYihijLSe6ev/TzgI6l1sHV9BjHnzJ90vS5pS/8oFDx3+WIEt1kxPDZ42 + Xy/6tpDAO1ZtajfIQBbz5e9A589RHVh0GJN0DAGKtblQRf/RBh+XQ+LZSZ5fRgu6dJ7Q + 0YBxTmq8r+WF50nzgUYCnfy7n3q5nlfNSqbyJ3wKfhoj+NWONR1UjT6mPQuHOgQrfU+O + UPI2Oa1FCiFhTfT97c8tEaUP0ohkqoYbl9yy3ZYj7saNzD4FpAOlDZeaD3AqRTWFra0g + fB7w== +X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7PApIQJLkyasgtMluN1MuzK77G80DiIDow+wfRmTLBY1MA89UD + 1+owSyEbLH306rdwOBoQmFEcPhQXjB+UOBA= +X-Received: by 10.107.1.205 with SMTP id 196mr2088995iob.131.1492263766230; + Sat, 15 Apr 2017 06:42:46 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Received: by 10.107.51.137 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 06:42:25 -0700 (PDT) +X-Originating-IP: [108.48.174.158] +From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org> +Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 09:42:25 -0400 +Message-ID: <CAOG=w-saibrGeOSaLFtcFo_D+2Gw4zoNA-brS=aPuBoyGuPCZA@mail.gmail.com> +To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a673cb2a5e3054d34bb72 +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, + DKIM_VALID,HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, + RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,T_REMOTE_IMAGE 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: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 13:57:06 +0000 +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: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 13:42:47 -0000 + +--001a113a673cb2a5e3054d34bb72 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 + +Greg, + +If I understand correctly, the crux of your argument against BIP148 is that +it requires the segwit BIP9 activation flag to be set in every block after +Aug 1st, until segwit activates. This will cause miners which have not +upgrade and indicated support for BIP141 (the segwit BIP) to find their +blocks ignored by UASF nodes, at least for the month or two it takes to +activate segwit. + +Isn't this however the entire point of BIP148? I understand if you object +to this, but let's be clear that this is a design requirement of the +proposal, not a technical oversight. The alternative you present (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. + +On an aside, I'm somewhat disappointed that you have decided to make a +public statement against the UASF proposal. Not because we disagree -- that +is fine -- but because any UASF must be a grassroots effort and +endorsements (or denouncements) detract from that. + +Mark Friedenbach + +--001a113a673cb2a5e3054d34bb72 +Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr"><span style=3D"background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Greg,= +<br><br>If I=20 +understand correctly, the crux of your argument against BIP148 is that=20 +it requires the segwit BIP9 activation flag to be set in every block=C2=A0<= +a dir=3D"ltr">after Aug 1st</a>, + until segwit activates. This will cause miners which have not upgrade=20 +and indicated support for BIP141 (the segwit BIP) to find their blocks=20 +ignored by UASF nodes, at least for the month or two it takes to=20 +activate segwit.<br><br>Isn't this however the entire point of BIP148? = +I + understand if you object to this, but let's be clear that this is a=20 +design requirement of the proposal, not a technical oversight. The=20 +alternative you present (new BIP bit) has the clear downside of not=20 +triggering BIP141 activation, and therefore not enabling the new=20 +consensus rules on already deployed full nodes. BIP148 is making an=20 +explicit choice to favor dragging along those users which have upgraded=20 +to BIP141 support over those miners who have failed to upgrade.<br><br>On + an aside, I'm somewhat disappointed that you have decided to make a=20 +public statement against the UASF proposal. Not because we disagree --=20 +that is fine -- but because any UASF must be a grassroots effort and=20 +endorsements (or denouncements) detract from that.<div class=3D"gmail-yj6qo= + gmail-ajU"><div id=3D"gmail-:1jd" class=3D"gmail-ajR" tabindex=3D"0"><img = +class=3D"gmail-ajT" src=3D"https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/= +cleardot.gif"><br></div><div id=3D"gmail-:1jd" class=3D"gmail-ajR" tabindex= +=3D"0">Mark Friedenbach<br></div></div></span></div> + +--001a113a673cb2a5e3054d34bb72-- + |