MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAjy6kC43DX3wpaZ+3skBUO8hVrYt7uNZfw1Ep3GDJs8YA9Gxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAS2fgRdSOu8N6L3+fBpnye+rM+W6+F=cePy=9oL4tJuCj=Jsw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFp6fsGcKip_R7OH217mXBQ8OK9N_3Ea-1HtRin3EtwzvJaBhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAjy6kC43DX3wpaZ+3skBUO8hVrYt7uNZfw1Ep3GDJs8YA9Gxg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Karl Johan Alm <karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 15:30:01 +0900
Message-ID: <CALJw2w54A_SL-p4iUX_bE3CJidPxNhb09On9XfUAYxmpV8ekpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steven Pine <steven.pine@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF
Precedence: list

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Correct me if I am wrong, but currently core developers are arguing over
> whether or not to allow an optional configuration switch which defaults off
> but signals and enforces BIP148 when used. Who are we protecting users from,
> themselves? Are you protecting core? from what? I am somewhat genuinely
> befuddled by those who can't even allow a user config switch to be set.

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. Users have,
hopefully, come to appreciate this implementation for the peer
review-based strict development process, and making a hasty decision
due to time constraints (segwit activation expiration) may have
undesirable consequences. Opinions among the regular contributors are
split on the matter, which to me is an indication we should be
cautious and consider all aspects before making a decision on the
matter.