I agree with everything Matt said. This "X+Y" "compromise" is not a new proposal and has been hashed over multiple times in the past dating back to at least fall 2015, ignores basically all design considerations and research over the last years, doesn't understand the real-politic of the delays, and so doesn't even help in the political domain.
I have taken the liberty of making a reddit thread with some of the previous explainers about why this doesn't work in practice (even ignoring all politics and hypothetically assuming it was a great all-new idea), let the discussion commence! https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/62rrlv/how_about_a_new_compromise_activate_the_existing/ UASF is a more logical step, than these "X+Y" politically motivated hard-forks, though UASF has risks vs SegWit BIPs in flight, the delay and risk is far lower than political hard-forks. I have set the reply-to to bitcoin-discuss. Adam _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
