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
|
Return-Path: <rgrant@rgrant.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4D4F279
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 14:54:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-yw0-f178.google.com (mail-yw0-f178.google.com
[209.85.161.178])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CAAF79
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 14:54:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-yw0-f178.google.com with SMTP id u70so1354908ywe.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 07:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=rgrant-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
:subject:to:cc;
bh=Zox/kB2vyHEPzejtuEW0nN2g5YXIK/uZa3NXihdhpik=;
b=gQyMoJC4aZAcq1JMeqbppKZgHsthtCAx78waCyTLhYh37ORORr+aFJuUNtVI4Bn68r
lwgl6aOZROa7LhiZZMtqcIh+OQKHcgd7LvYdN2KbpTafrqmCuHnGjPF5D9J192vlKV1S
f05cbgJ0CLYf1AxrTX2bvFKHlZsNVx1FFGyXSD2VHH1GflCiliV3OsO55JHeOlL4SbkM
1xceucFD+P10AyVAwRrIolGCJJk5/UraITn6BQN9K/6Uvif/3UiBpGCpwzp2GcXfNNM5
CmYa0BunsISzK6lyRgEGq5QrEMzLhgmelwQM4siI31bAu6NzZKk7OTZ+xKuWLzMSK/Pz
lN/w==
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=Zox/kB2vyHEPzejtuEW0nN2g5YXIK/uZa3NXihdhpik=;
b=QNVCYeuuCBhJgk9gKF0Q0KKew3oJdUM9zBcfm7Iz+tiaJOU5QW4dfZSmDRPxHiRehp
U+ggVsUQ5XOLEtX8ldZReQmQ/z1mBCP05KMVQ7dSWWCuSdn2on+PHNeuO1AW/T2kvDha
VIFvzZjXcE+ZtS3N+B01DwVYBfGFkUkZn2qf39ETMGuc/lhffXUYY3ZEXMLwV7vHir37
cghZScF4m6L5d/4waEIXDAb5mHvG9YkK7c8lIUzP/A+fZSow2+hXBwOq0YkAKChQA2zj
LFSlJrkmurDjUT3dHNqHGU1yOJ1/z6Ib06dpPyymIga9pJ6bBoVswHekHkv/CJu73Q3p
BT5A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7l85sz8jkEqI1go4O4Gfl7S9JqEhW8CvhMwLmPsAFiv3Ect1gs
TPvmHIggVBI7t33/xpKhljba+sTMkg==
X-Received: by 10.13.204.135 with SMTP id o129mr3098634ywd.251.1492268071502;
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 07:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rgrant@rgrant.org
Received: by 10.37.179.22 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 07:54:00 -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: Ryan Grant <bitcoin-dev@rgrant.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 09:54:00 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: sZcMI3nmU-ZWOUBcYCVuWva8mvE
Message-ID: <CAMnpzfr0Oc3mAUcsnEfh5hOV81xBAZ1-BAwAFzVjntohXw=bEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,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
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 14:54:33 -0000
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> The alternative [Greg presents] (new BIP bit) has the clear downside
> of not 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.
A proposal from yesterday would separate this concern; though not
retroactively. One way to name this proposal would be "Catch-All
Segwit Activation".
"extended BIP9 activation of segwit, for legacy nodes"
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/014160.html
If this release valve exists, then discussions (such as this thread)
can get back to focusing on finding the safest incentive-compatible
transitions, with time improving the situation instead of making it worse.
|
