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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E61C0949
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 23 May 2017 13:20:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id y190so57866453vkc.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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: <CAAS2fgRdSOu8N6L3+fBpnye+rM+W6+F=cePy=9oL4tJuCj=Jsw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAjy6kC43DX3wpaZ+3skBUO8hVrYt7uNZfw1Ep3GDJs8YA9Gxg@mail.gmail.com>
<CALJw2w54A_SL-p4iUX_bE3CJidPxNhb09On9XfUAYxmpV8ekpQ@mail.gmail.com>
<201705231255.27861.luke@dashjr.org>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 15:20:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDoebzbBHKQw66NzHwZPTwMONUZXo-mt3YoP03HPaxm1rA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.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
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, 23 May 2017 13:20:13 -0000
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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.
|
