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
|
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 BBB66B5E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:28:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ua0-f177.google.com (mail-ua0-f177.google.com
[209.85.217.177])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA75126A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:28:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ua0-f177.google.com with SMTP id 110so38402794uas.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:28:15 -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=3whKbYLB8eYcAQZCGB5SOPrMP90JrPaz8IgkZbu2Fgw=;
b=mRPSS/h92L2W4E+01vbLDgutmIiAUzmqR9/jafGYGxcOZZrqGMEIwEWTqFDcPCqCu0
7XIVOFnVGldMcEQ5DaHl7HXI4FpvLSoSp3nQGC+7YOuvxg+PF/b5emrapGFN1Tb3esjA
yNHyrzfwCZoNw8TWXzk7JWep+7g+nEglTCeQqlfzdvgBRZsJVMStV2aVXsMUDyJjO+lp
e+oMPxO0GLq1kcT4zWM1/3riJMzJ4dOazh/+FYswQhqqXzWru6A5fsxBV93zZcYhZRdD
lJ+G7SGwnvReZZ24cJttaqwQWEwnGkPIv38XZxwlHYAY5u9/G61Nz+S/+UBAjWYICaXM
PuGw==
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=3whKbYLB8eYcAQZCGB5SOPrMP90JrPaz8IgkZbu2Fgw=;
b=i4wpII/b389dl/ow/ZMPUEg8R1zswma4Jh966Sr7WCM64ReGAlxfh+S9pytF5fTgzP
UyIlvBeUprvmoVStXtWavpITrmU3/tdVKVv3M4fVs6MEPscwnT3l60NWxAcHHkA3hmB/
rDT+ksSSRElWkZtS4S18DRs9T7G6KeyqEzmfmgqkhbzTTKnd3bdlPVzFgQg05jU84KXv
vQJKKgKceQ9tm1a333QXARLBVOCm/o0fmKgY24tdw77NU5eMbDLpMePLAz51U7wMRodc
i/64ZA+Goaid3yA0GMe4kE5sPLsp/DBOdsdcpSXBz3+mj3k69Y4CkmKaXRkj0nRD6LlJ
EeWw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7GApyLdoffOgVryaBzO18JysGOGtOjV8wtDlZSf8zXp1Ebsu1N
QmrT/uzXg6H/VuiHRzEbXJrw76ivKA==
X-Received: by 10.176.80.16 with SMTP id b16mr7400992uaa.103.1493144895124;
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:28:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
Received: by 10.103.94.132 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <X8k9ENqIddjVtibis1I8dLjHNxIUao0rLwZzpyoCNuWlc6Umgu7huGsbBWGhVY6Jd2XEUOVO8MxkgYKTyaNJ23nJbrE8dz7b8JKTBoE5Ljo=@protonmail.ch>
References: <CAAS2fgRdSOu8N6L3+fBpnye+rM+W6+F=cePy=9oL4tJuCj=Jsw@mail.gmail.com>
<X8k9ENqIddjVtibis1I8dLjHNxIUao0rLwZzpyoCNuWlc6Umgu7huGsbBWGhVY6Jd2XEUOVO8MxkgYKTyaNJ23nJbrE8dz7b8JKTBoE5Ljo=@protonmail.ch>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:28:14 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: -hFqEJVhCAwLsw5nEc2PZ3hAOSQ
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQzd9J3iNMRfW+x1QnqMFAHx89+GTXEt0SWm6+USZniDA@mail.gmail.com>
To: shaolinfry <shaolinfry@protonmail.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM,
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: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:28:16 -0000
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 6:39 PM, shaolinfry <shaolinfry@protonmail.ch> wrote:
> I agree with much of your thoughts. I originally started working on a
> generalized way to deploy user activated soft forks, in a way that leveraged
> BIP9 to allow for optional faster MASF activation. BIP148 came about as a
> way to satify many people's frustrations about the current segwit
> activation. I have said several times in various places that the proposal
> requires a very high amount of consensus that needs to be present to make
> actual deployment feasible. BIP148 is certainly not what a normal UASF would
> or should look like.
>
> I remain convinced the community very much wants segwit activated and that
> the UASF movement in general has gained a lot of traction. While support for
> BIP148 is surprisingly high, there are definitely important players who
> support UASF in general but do not like BIP148 approach (which you rightly
> point out is a UASF to force a MASF).
[...]
> With BIP8 we could perform a UASF segwit deployment. Due to some
> complexities in the peering logic, I recommend a new deployment with a fresh
> bit that starts right after November 15th (when BIP9 segwit timesout) with a
> BIP8 timeout for April 2018. The code can deployed much earlier. For example
> if code was deployed today, it would give the economy a year to upgrade.
> Activation could still occur safely by MASF any time from now until April
> 2018 (SEGWIT until Nov, then UASEGWIT from Nov until April 2018).
>
> I am still working on the finer implementation details, but you can see a
> rough draft from this diff (which includes BIP8 in the first commit, and the
> proposed bip-segwit-uasf in the second commit).
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...shaolinfry:uasegwit-flagday
>
> I believe this approach would satisfy the more measured approach expected
> for Bitcoin and does not have the issues you brought up about BIP148.
I have not reviewed it carefully yet, but I agree that it addresses my
main concern! I think this is a much better approach. Thanks.
|
