From: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon•cc>
To: Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail•com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 20:38:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABm2gDo0wgqkEufKn=Z8uAsi=_6fgE=0TS6Bcr21mg3xAX7Kyw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKzdR-oRdX-fXyc6womZOyYyfHUJZdgh92FUMM8pR_QDNiJfkQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Regarding the timeline, its certainly rather short, but also is the UASF BIP
> 148 ultimatum.
This is correct. If you are trying to imply that makes the short
timeline here right, you are falling for a "tu quoque" fallacy.
> More than 80% of the miners and many users are willing to go in the Segwit2x
> direction.
There's no logical reason I can think of (and I've heard many attempts
at explaining it) for miners to consider segwit bad for Bitcoin but
segwitx2 harmless. But I don't see 80% hashrate support for bip141, so
your claim doesn't seem accurate for the segwit part, let alone the
more controversial hardfork part.
I read some people controlling mining pools that control 80% of the
hashrate signed a paper saying they would "support segwit
immediately". Either what I read wasn't true, or the signed paper is
just a proof of the signing pool operators word being something we
cannot trust.
So where does this 80% figure come from? How can we trust the source?
> I want a Bitcoin united. But maybe a split of Bitcoin, each side with its
> own vision, is not so bad.
It would be unfortunate to split the network into 2 coins only because
of lack of patience for deploying non-urgent consensus changes like a
size increase or disagreements about the right time schedule.
I think anything less than 1 year after release of tested code by some
implementation would be irresponsible for any hardfork, even a very
simple one.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-10 18:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-07 22:25 Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-07-07 22:44 ` Matt Corallo
2017-07-07 23:25 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-07-07 23:22 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-07-13 3:10 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-07-13 3:19 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-07-07 23:27 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-07-07 23:38 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-07-08 6:30 ` Erik Aronesty
2017-07-08 13:28 ` Btc Drak
[not found] ` <A7FFF8F7-9806-44F1-B68F-F83C44893365@ob1.io>
2017-07-10 11:50 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-07-10 18:38 ` Jorge Timón [this message]
2017-07-12 8:15 ` Tom Zander
2017-07-12 12:38 ` Jonas Schnelli
2017-07-12 17:38 ` Jorge Timón
2017-07-13 19:19 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-07-13 19:48 ` Andrew Chow
2017-07-13 21:18 ` Charlie 'Charles' Shrem
2017-07-14 13:50 ` Erik Aronesty
2017-07-12 1:06 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-07-12 15:41 ` Aymeric Vitte
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CABm2gDo0wgqkEufKn=Z8uAsi=_6fgE=0TS6Bcr21mg3xAX7Kyw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=jtimon@jtimon$(echo .)cc \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=sergio.d.lerner@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox