MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: bitcoin-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
From: Adam Back <adam.back@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 15:18:18 +0200
Message-ID: <CALqxMTHjsCeyy+y-ViouHP7DBNrBGp4QxgpP2nq0uStBC10BfQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: bitcoin-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] hard-fork "X+Y" compromise discussion re-run
Precedence: list

I agree with everything Matt said.  This "X+Y" "compromise" is not a
new proposal and has been hashed over multiple times in the past
dating back to at least fall 2015, ignores basically all design
considerations and research over the last  years, doesn't understand
the real-politic of the delays, and so doesn't even help in the
political domain.

I have taken the liberty of making a reddit thread with some of the
previous explainers about why this doesn't work in practice (even
ignoring all politics and hypothetically assuming it was a great
all-new idea), let the discussion commence!

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/62rrlv/how_about_a_new_compromise_activate_the_existing/

UASF is a more logical step, than these "X+Y" politically motivated
hard-forks, though UASF has risks vs SegWit BIPs in flight, the delay
and risk is far lower than political hard-forks.

I have set the reply-to to bitcoin-discuss.

Adam