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
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
|
Return-Path: <earonesty@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54BAC305
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:17:41 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qk0-f181.google.com (mail-qk0-f181.google.com
[209.85.220.181])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E98D1A1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:17:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qk0-f181.google.com with SMTP id f133so24434964qke.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Apr 2017 09:17:40 -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=sdb992rB+HKV+NC/IFPHY7r/zciPVpKmXsXYQcS6wmY=;
b=tYu5Hy5krY+p53+YhE/91kZ4HBVNfKFiHWgW190uUJFbcbXPdO581s8Dzc4Qu1SfwK
jFuOh7pTfDzxV1cHvS2zaotATw/8IIXqlO6hF4C35XREznxC2cfvttG2JanPwe9ufPy4
0JNgUvvMx8Ky5TbvC7kWeBYHV4kv1s1iDbS82K2Hy2tiNbwQ7uqoOHGjLqwGqMJVcf4P
07uc9OVJM9f4/GTscPLxPl7m8vPW0GGOLp6xyEjq/QZ30KsSoWSztIUD89pydkUANiG9
85Aknk0FlLFnM6fkg/Z4HQdv7fKNMdSbDbcZGuahf+8rCvF9n4XdQ99fmnItE4opVl5X
Yafw==
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=sdb992rB+HKV+NC/IFPHY7r/zciPVpKmXsXYQcS6wmY=;
b=ghmBHDey2tf3sbmZko3Mz0djofip7zDqO3lYLJeCE0G2ReHWkeRzy6j+mMy3AXN5bH
8MXsrOxyPBG2FL3M1fvmkfRXhz9agi2lpw+j/DWVm1FI3xDxVtMJTrG8BQMsANklwf0K
zBOE355WsdA6mz+0O/NQFGm6WqvJvb0pDo2/bOQE3JPVFVb51VSFZ4LXuo+zNTnlGB6Y
yvLi1ydR0t3iPsT2K8h2u5Jib/zyGiSTbMTxRlJpPepHUFsnS/7gPnQFI8AOi2nLbJP3
bzpERcoN7w+OuGXCm0bccZorKtDQ/xAwhsxLqEgJDgR9RXJaYH77IjwlA2LKZPtI54JX
TDNg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6KtfGzQpVZu8bGB5zoDGjtlQijoMu3VHNgw52N8lOTxpeRCKoD
b3C8yKN4L4mc8TdTFMkn/TvTXREAtA==
X-Received: by 10.55.129.134 with SMTP id c128mr3077894qkd.310.1492618659797;
Wed, 19 Apr 2017 09:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: earonesty@gmail.com
Received: by 10.200.0.146 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 09:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSGNErAHmZCeKr+agnS4YEwf57yAmvv70XzkkqRfvdDig@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOG=w-saibrGeOSaLFtcFo_D+2Gw4zoNA-brS=aPuBoyGuPCZA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgSGNErAHmZCeKr+agnS4YEwf57yAmvv70XzkkqRfvdDig@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:17:39 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9TA-4D5HyLmrhRkxfJpub1G2P8U
Message-ID: <CAJowKg+Y=1pa7CJq0SWBi4d=_q306=FnwUiAhkgJwGWWQjV2Pw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c05751600a914054d875d35
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:45:40 +0000
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: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:17:41 -0000
--94eb2c05751600a914054d875d35
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
The "UASF movement" seems a bit premature to me - I doubt UASF will be
necessary if a WTXID commitment is tried first. I think that should be
first-efforts focus.
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
--94eb2c05751600a914054d875d35
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>The "UASF movement" seems a bit premature t=
o me - I doubt UASF will be necessary if a WTXID commitment is tried first.=
=C2=A0=C2=A0 I think that should be first-efforts focus.<br></div></div><di=
v class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 15, 2017=
at 2:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin=
-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span class=3D"">On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 1:4=
2 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mai=
lto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br></span><div class=3D"=
gmail_extra"><span class=3D""><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span style=3D"background-color:rgba(255,255=
,255,0)">triggering BIP141 activation, and therefore not enabling 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></span><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br><div>I do not=
follow the argument that a critical design feature of a particular "u=
ser activated soft fork" could be that it is users don't need to b=
e involved.=C2=A0 If the goal is user activation I would think that the exp=
ectation would be that the overwhelming majority of users would be upgradin=
g to do it, if that isn't the case, then it isn't really a user act=
ivated softfork-- it's something else.<br></div><span class=3D""><div>=
=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo=
rder-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></span><div>So it has to be supported by the public but I c=
an't say why I don't support it? This seems extremely suspect to me=
.</div><br><div>=C2=A0</div></div></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
--94eb2c05751600a914054d875d35--
|
