From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
	Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 01:06:14 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.9.16-gentoo; KDE/4.14.32; x86_64; ; )
References: <CAKzdR-qCmuj02yobAj9YDYq7Ed309z2VUaMtbL_i9vF3zkp5mw@mail.gmail.com>
	<A7FFF8F7-9806-44F1-B68F-F83C44893365@ob1.io>
	<CAKzdR-oRdX-fXyc6womZOyYyfHUJZdgh92FUMM8pR_QDNiJfkQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKzdR-oRdX-fXyc6womZOyYyfHUJZdgh92FUMM8pR_QDNiJfkQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201707120106.16951.luke@dashjr.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP
Precedence: list

On Monday 10 July 2017 11:50:33 AM Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Regarding the timeline, its certainly rather short, but also is the UASF
> BIP 148 ultimatum.

BIP148 began with 8 months lead time, reduced to 5 months from popular request 
and technical considerations. There is nothing about BIP148 that compels an 
attempted hardfork 90 days later - that could just as well have been 18 
months.

> More than 80% of the miners and many users are willing to go in the
> Segwit2x direction. With the support and great talent of the Bitcoin Core
> developers, Segwit2x activation will not cause any major disruptions.

That's not true at all. Based on my observations, only approximately 20% of 
the community follow Core's technical lead without significant consideration 
of their own - and who knows if that would change if Core were to suggest 
clearly-unsafe block size increases, or attempted to force a hardfork against 
consensus. Even with Core's support, many people would oppose the hardfork 
attempt, and it would fail.

> Without Core, there will be a temporary split. Both sides will have to
> hard-fork.

Segwit2x's hardfork does not compel the remaining Bitcoin users to also 
hardfork.

> I want a Bitcoin united. But maybe a split of Bitcoin, each side with its
> own vision, is not so bad.

I concur, but I disagree your approach has any possibility of a united 
Bitcoin. The only way to get that today, would be to do Segwit+Drivechain, not 
Segwit+Hardfork.

Luke