MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: earonesty@gmail.com
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
Message-ID: <CAJowKg+Y=1pa7CJq0SWBi4d=_q306=FnwUiAhkgJwGWWQjV2Pw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c05751600a914054d875d35
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF
Precedence: list

--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 &quot;UASF movement&quot; 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">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin=
-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</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">&lt;<a href=3D"mai=
lto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</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 &quot;u=
ser activated soft fork&quot; could be that it is users don&#39;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&#39;t the case, then it isn&#39;t really a user act=
ivated softfork-- it&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t say why I don&#39;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--