Re: [bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF

From: Alphonse Pace <alp.bitcoin@gmail•com>
To: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:23:40 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMBsKS9P1wBNS9u1Ly5USQ=YTd-m8uMK-xZGYkYa4J=f+jz3ow@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJowKg+Y=1pa7CJq0SWBi4d=_q306=FnwUiAhkgJwGWWQjV2Pw@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2090 bytes --]

A WTXID commitment would (likely) need to be a UASF.

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3940 bytes --]