From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
 Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 20:43:28 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.9.16-gentoo; KDE/4.14.32; x86_64; ; )
References: <KXL-Ie0q1dKTlbQ2XCyTRCzoQLND-Q7M9CFvYTfhjgeiZ4K3knpetQSwwLviO6whuHXQnFPg-rg8q1xW8w5mNnYFxalvx5_9Vci63lC9ju4=@protonmail.ch>
	<201707050350.53122.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAAS2fgTko+aszOReFX5Svo4h-qROzdU9+vZLSDoR97do6YJ_cQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgTko+aszOReFX5Svo4h-qROzdU9+vZLSDoR97do6YJ_cQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201707062043.30569.luke@dashjr.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds
Precedence: list

On Wednesday 05 July 2017 8:06:33 AM Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 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.

Nothing is "orphaned" unless miners are acting negligently or maliciously. 
Incentivising honest behaviour from miners is inherently part of Bitcoin's 
design, and these changes are necessary for both that and keeping the network 
secure. This doesn't do harm; it reduces risk of harm.

> 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 don't appreciate the uncalled-for character assassination, and it doesn't 
belong on this mailing list.

> 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.

Since you apparently have a drastically different opinion on this subject, I 
think it may be best to wait until after BIP148 to continue the discussion 
(thereby having more real-world information to work from).

Therefore, I have opened a new pull request with just the parts you seem to be 
objecting to removed. Please let us know if this version is satisfactory.

    https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/551

Luke