MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <E7A3E345-15C9-4C4C-B3D7-C75634243430@gmail.com>
References: <CAAS2fgRdSOu8N6L3+fBpnye+rM+W6+F=cePy=9oL4tJuCj=Jsw@mail.gmail.com>
	<E7A3E345-15C9-4C4C-B3D7-C75634243430@gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 07:04:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSXOkTcJ5tTssuGMCQwh-JFQTkzU5VBjaR+hKT+bD3Q6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cameron Garnham <da2ce7@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF
Precedence: list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Cameron Garnham <da2ce7@gmail.com> wrote:
> As many may remember, there was quite some controversy about the BIP16 vs=
 BIP 17 split; the main argument for BIP16 was the urgency of P2SH, and how=
 this was the already =E2=80=9Ctested and proven to work=E2=80=9D solution.

And as a result we ultimately got a clearly inferior solution (520
byte script limit; 80-bit security; months of orphaned blocks-- and
two of those were not issues in BIP17).  I went along for the cram
fest on 16 after 12 caught fire, and I was mistaken to do so.

Doubly so because it took years for P2SH to achieve any kind of mass
deployment due to issues far away from consensus.  An extra two months
spent on some ground-work (including communications and documentation)
could have pulled forward practical deployment by a year and given
time to find and fix some of the flaws in the design of P2SH.

> BIP 148 is out (our?) terms of peace.  The Bitcoin Community is tired-to-=
death of this war and wants a resolution swiftly. BIP 148 proves a outlet, =
and in Maxwell words: =E2=80=9C...almost guarantees at a minor level of dis=
ruption.=E2=80=9D.

It seems I lost a word in my comment: that should have been "almost
guarantees at _least_ a minor level of disruption". A minor level of
disruption is the _minimum_ amount of disruption, and for no good
reason except an unprecedented and unjustified level of haste.

Considering that you did not spare a single word about the specific
property that I am concerned about-- that the proposal will reject the
blocks of passive participants, due to avoidable design limitations--
I can't help but feel that you don't even care to understand the
concern I was bringing up. :(

How many people barely reviewed the specifics of the proposal simply
because they want something fast and this proposal does something
fast?

> tired-to-death of this war and wants a resolution swiftly

By now competitors and opponents to Bitcoin have surely realized that
they can attack Bitcoin by stirring up drama.

As a result, the only way that we will ever be free from "war" is if
we choose to not let it impact us as much as possible. We must be
imperturbable and continue working at the same level of excellence as
if virtual shells weren't flying overhead-- or otherwise there is an
incentive to keep them flying 24/7. Internet drama is remarkably cheap
to generate. "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself".

The alternative is that we hand opponents a ready made formula for
disruption: astroturf enough drama up that Bitcoiners "sacrifice
correctness" themselves right off a cliff in a futile attempt to make
it go away. :)