From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
 Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:46:09 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.9.16-gentoo; KDE/4.14.29; x86_64; ; )
References: <CAAS2fgRdSOu8N6L3+fBpnye+rM+W6+F=cePy=9oL4tJuCj=Jsw@mail.gmail.com>
	<X8k9ENqIddjVtibis1I8dLjHNxIUao0rLwZzpyoCNuWlc6Umgu7huGsbBWGhVY6Jd2XEUOVO8MxkgYKTyaNJ23nJbrE8dz7b8JKTBoE5Ljo=@protonmail.ch>
	<CAAS2fgQzd9J3iNMRfW+x1QnqMFAHx89+GTXEt0SWm6+USZniDA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQzd9J3iNMRfW+x1QnqMFAHx89+GTXEt0SWm6+USZniDA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201704251846.10793.luke@dashjr.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF
Precedence: list

On Tuesday 25 April 2017 6:28:14 PM Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...shaolinfry:uasegwit-f
> > lagday
> > 
> > I believe this approach would satisfy the more measured approach expected
> > for Bitcoin and does not have the issues you brought up about BIP148.
> 
> I have not reviewed it carefully yet, but I agree that it addresses my
> main concern!  I think this is a much better approach. Thanks.

FWIW, I disagree in this case. I think given the circumstances, if we are 
going to do a UASF for segwit at all, we need a clearly decisive outcome, 
which is given by BIP 148. Using the approach in BIP 8 makes sense in many 
cases, but in this case, it is liable to simply create a prolonged uncertainty 
where nobody knows the outcome when segwit's rules are challenged by a 
malicious miner.

If BIP 148 fails to achieve widespread support, we could do a BIP 8-based UASF 
with Segwit v2 (along with some other changes I suggested in the other 
thread), but I think the tradeoffs right now favour BIP 148 as the best UASF 
deployment.

Luke