1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3689AA88
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 18:50:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ua0-f172.google.com (mail-ua0-f172.google.com
[209.85.217.172])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 861D31CE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 18:50:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ua0-f172.google.com with SMTP id q26so58840230uaa.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 11:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
:subject:to:cc;
bh=9yB1MdLJoQiyQeWhsFUCoB+9mPTm1mL1u4kdQsxPgp8=;
b=ZcFturjjgHZvEEgxXFjXCNIIJvv1OauMYoiiMMnn0s7D2eLvAX6a7Ilk9yP653wJbp
f0QhB3FWVQovsq+q3Vb3HS8RxX42Ndr6iWcpmyPkqHS3nsQaXuh15eR/JgULopHCjS7j
lM/HbeP8/p+KE/M9HlkuG6s7OfDyz+tdNH6G0uAG4KpcKZqHS9Gi96nDoiQLtjgl1GyL
wU9amVbGvPLTkhtfjDZQRTd1Tzj0tmoKUGzKgKAwTJeyDoAWv4NertL0w+Ueb30QoGgo
foHLK8zis2YvtEsgPv6TztN0NUc64JF+LPbMThAszcVSVNOAik597l3QGi67E/IQeQvX
lQrg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
:date:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=9yB1MdLJoQiyQeWhsFUCoB+9mPTm1mL1u4kdQsxPgp8=;
b=aArqfIvVrFLhuLk5VADDc9sVOFpH3iP0H0XrN/xEw3ETiHySgxDSVmuF/GS5Wf9bs8
0H+kQNJ8AWu26FB67MwWxekC4X61dp/FTK+Nk+XC0VpRRM8WygILw6k7RJbny8b3jppJ
lqccdJuRdz5tj7rnrILk9lxPHoBm6meURRzooACmpmzsuSuWFJRgVzflyYOb/p83L0WW
5tJxa8de/84tgvHq77ZkhgobsEacAP+oJkKTgt+m7NrwmHLXUJp0IxsqPgXe/iw/lBdK
2XeqU4M5gt3ZGmPrNLO60izinQJqGO2j7JW+Hv4Sq9JIELjLmax3bttgoHTY1NLskQZg
2gYQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4Y/O/z6yrTwpYRKGOdW77zAmuRLe8jQlEATYzs23UsDNXLfxGg
7PmwrzyWlSO6ghpRaGEFkrTWMfDZWA==
X-Received: by 10.176.9.129 with SMTP id x1mr5450821uag.96.1492282218764; Sat,
15 Apr 2017 11:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
Received: by 10.103.94.132 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 11:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-saibrGeOSaLFtcFo_D+2Gw4zoNA-brS=aPuBoyGuPCZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOG=w-saibrGeOSaLFtcFo_D+2Gw4zoNA-brS=aPuBoyGuPCZA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 18:50:17 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: AxSrKY8vA2uaRbkzd379TEZEjEs
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSGNErAHmZCeKr+agnS4YEwf57yAmvv70XzkkqRfvdDig@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403043c4d308de507054d390731
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 18:50:20 -0000
--f403043c4d308de507054d390731
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> triggering BIP141 activation, and therefore not enabling the new consensus
> rules on already deployed full nodes. BIP148 is making an explicit choice
> to favor dragging along those users which have upgraded to BIP141 support
> over those miners who have failed to upgrade.
>
I do not follow the argument that a critical design feature of a particular
"user activated soft fork" could be that it is users don't need to be
involved. If the goal is user activation I would think that the
expectation would be that the overwhelming majority of users would be
upgrading to do it, if that isn't the case, then it isn't really a user
activated softfork-- it's something else.
> On an aside, I'm somewhat disappointed that you have decided to make a
> public statement against the UASF proposal. Not because we disagree -- that
> is fine -- but because any UASF must be a grassroots effort and
> endorsements (or denouncements) detract from that.
>
So it has to be supported by the public but I can't say why I don't support
it? This seems extremely suspect to me.
--f403043c4d308de507054d390731
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitc=
oin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoun=
dation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>>=
</span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #=
ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span style=3D"background-colo=
r:rgba(255,255,255,0)">triggering BIP141 activation, and therefore not enab=
ling the new=20
consensus rules on already deployed full nodes. BIP148 is making an=20
explicit choice to favor dragging along those users which have upgraded=20
to BIP141 support over those miners who have failed to upgrade.<br></span><=
/div></blockquote></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br><div>I do not follow=
the argument that a critical design feature of a particular "user act=
ivated soft fork" could be that it is users don't need to be invol=
ved.=C2=A0 If the goal is user activation I would think that the expectatio=
n would be that the overwhelming majority of users would be upgrading to do=
it, if that isn't the case, then it isn't really a user activated =
softfork-- it's something else.<br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;=
padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span style=3D"background-color:rgba(255=
,255,255,0)">On
an aside, I'm somewhat disappointed that you have decided to make a=20
public statement against the UASF proposal. Not because we disagree --=20
that is fine -- but because any UASF must be a grassroots effort and=20
endorsements (or denouncements) detract from that.</span></div></blockquote=
><div><br></div><div>So it has to be supported by the public but I can'=
t say why I don't support it? This seems extremely suspect to me.</div>=
<br><div>=C2=A0</div></div></div></div>
--f403043c4d308de507054d390731--
|
