Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E61C0949 for ; Tue, 23 May 2017 13:20:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f46.google.com (mail-vk0-f46.google.com [209.85.213.46]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6892F15B for ; Tue, 23 May 2017 13:20:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id y190so57866453vkc.1 for ; Tue, 23 May 2017 06:20:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6jf1rpK8J/2fhVFyd8gNWzaKdpnNvqB2wE896uoSjqQ=; b=L/iBRhc3Qin+2E6N7yw0m2JRaGT9Rz6f+1JgSEKrBLMKyOy3bRGHJh8fxrd6t3Syty K/Hngu8mTU9HGS56YKn4byahAVTjOKm2VN+RsFL2m6FZAyCl5z64j99j8AYRCxEVZX+i 93UXOYaisLhu2kKX/I0m7PpF7N7bxqdTSZWOSTDz8m8QNRXnMW+IJURO+Zoz+pgbUPRZ ng3zTyKZl+kZ0RQlZyfNhn+OTwa+ho5jj9AHD8ganfs/SG6q+zBCeLW/8SOtRUUOptr8 UCrONVJjGFOA2ngaTIF/IIr19cawMuedb7vvNDHIDy8AoSbMcLrh0gDTPSh8/uIogie7 HkUA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6jf1rpK8J/2fhVFyd8gNWzaKdpnNvqB2wE896uoSjqQ=; b=RGmoOl6MLvK9t2ALMj1OYqRT9WE/5o/4+fp5lQEP0vpJb/DTleV5cRLi9LO2YAvrRu JksD0okc3GCg/FVW4amicWh1z0ne7/4G3UmxEOm1r+IOUDSnLzhqZEk37zjAitElQoxW DQTXtekqVp35P7VDpPsKDYQo7B8Hd2aKz+A3CqPLZUfC7Z2e/+dVhlARiGTXSEJBlN+r ksMAvH77ie6Nt0a2LV2uerdB4zUTD2bBoCLGXc/uQdAOWcZpYPT1q3Fevku0SYkwoEGH rydN8pn3M6y1h8BHWyijxOp2vqqR1ymNqFlmT8kG8POO/yQLBRTvYlUe5yrpafkivp9t 5i/Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDJJ7saKe3CiPPuO9YdawV/vGsyl02udDm6jJiP670FV+MZZaUn lUzTF4S61KCgoHEijTGuVtuhfQG5OwS7 X-Received: by 10.31.75.6 with SMTP id y6mr9934752vka.46.1495545611394; Tue, 23 May 2017 06:20:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.37.200 with HTTP; Tue, 23 May 2017 06:20:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201705231255.27861.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201705231255.27861.luke@dashjr.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 15:20:10 +0200 Message-ID: To: Luke Dashjr 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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 13:20:13 -0000 On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Tuesday 23 May 2017 6:30:01 AM Karl Johan Alm via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> 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. > > In this case, NOT enforcing BIP148 puts users at more risk. Since devs are > divided in opinion, we should at the very least have an option to let users > decide one way or the other. Well, it's putting users at more risk only if for those users who actively decided to put themselves at risk. I also feel bip148 is rushed and that makes it more risky. I don't want to reiterate points other have made but I don't fully agree with all of them. I prefer the way it is over the way it was (just activating at a given date without forcing mining signaling), but I still think it's rushed and unnecessarily risky (unless activating segwit was urgent, which I think it's not, no matter how much I want it to become active as soon as possible). On the other hand, I support uasf and bip8 to replace bip9 for future deployments, since bip9 made assumptions that weren't correct (like assuming miners would always signal changes that don't harm any user and are good for some of them). Perhaps bip149 can be modified to activate earlier if the current proposal is perceived as unnecessarily cautious. Luke, I've seen you say in other forums that "bip148 is less risky than bip149", but I think that's clearly false. As a reminder, one of my complains about bip109 was precisely that it was also rushed in how fast it could activate.