Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FF944A3 for ; Tue, 23 May 2017 12:57:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 421C31D6 for ; Tue, 23 May 2017 12:57:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB23038A0E89; Tue, 23 May 2017 12:55:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:170523:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::H=3hDf+7YEFQawEa:JK=A X-Hashcash: 1:25:170523:karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp::OnQFYvp37F7k5e5F:eeU72 X-Hashcash: 1:25:170523:steven.pine@gmail.com::P+DYGa0LkncfdjhO:de/PN From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Karl Johan Alm Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 12:55:26 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.9.16-gentoo; KDE/4.14.29; x86_64; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201705231255.27861.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 12:57:27 -0000 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. Luke