MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <201707050350.53122.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <KXL-Ie0q1dKTlbQ2XCyTRCzoQLND-Q7M9CFvYTfhjgeiZ4K3knpetQSwwLviO6whuHXQnFPg-rg8q1xW8w5mNnYFxalvx5_9Vci63lC9ju4=@protonmail.ch>
	<201707050350.53122.luke@dashjr.org>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 08:06:33 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTko+aszOReFX5Svo4h-qROzdU9+vZLSDoR97do6YJ_cQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds
Precedence: list

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 3:50 AM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I've already opened a PR almost 2 weeks ago to do this and fix the other
> issues BIP 9 has. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/550
>
> It just needs your ACK to merge.

These proposals for gratuitous orphaning are reckless and coersive.
We have a professional obligation to first do no harm, and amplifying
orphaning which can otherwise easily be avoided violates it.

It is not anyones position to decide who does and doesn't need to be
"woken up" with avoidable finical harm, nor is it any of our right to
do so at the risk of monetary losses by any and all users users from
the resulting network instability.

It's one thing to argue that some disruption is strictly needed for
the sake of advancement, it's another to see yourself fit as judge,
jury, and executioner to any that does not jump at your command.
(which is exactly the tone I and at least some others extract from
your advocacy of these changes and similar activity around BIP148).

I for one oppose those changes strongly.

> Not having a mandatory signal turned out to be a serious bug in BIP 9,

I have seen no evidence or case for this.