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

2017-04-15 Thread Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev
Greg, If I understand correctly, the crux of your argument against BIP148 is that it requires the segwit BIP9 activation flag to be set in every block after Aug 1st, until segwit activates. This will cause miners which have not upgrade and indicated support for BIP141 (the segwit BIP) to find

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

2017-04-15 Thread Greg Sanders via bitcoin-dev
> Besides that, I also just don't believe that UASF itself as a method to activate softforks is a good choice. The only two reliable signals we have for this purpose in Bitcoin are block height (flag day) and standard miner signaling, as every other metric can be falsified or gamed. UASF can be

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

2017-04-15 Thread Natanael via bitcoin-dev
Den 15 apr. 2017 13:51 skrev "Chris Acheson via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: Not sure if you missed my previous reply to you, but I'm curious about your thoughts on this particular point. I contend that for any UASF, orphaning non-signalling blocks on the flag date is

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

2017-04-15 Thread Chris Acheson via bitcoin-dev
On 04/15/2017 03:04 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Considering that you did not spare a single word about the specific > property that I am concerned about-- that the proposal will reject > the blocks of passive participants, due to avoidable design > limitations-- I can't help but

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

2017-04-15 Thread Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev
Thank-you for your prompt response, I believe I must have a different prospective of Bitcoin to you. Ideologically I don’t agree that miners can be passive participants in the Bitcoin Network; and I certainly don’t see them acting as passive participants in the Bitcoin Community now. The

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

2017-04-15 Thread Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Cameron Garnham wrote: > As many may remember, there was quite some controversy about the BIP16 vs BIP > 17 split; the main argument for BIP16 was the urgency of P2SH, and how this > was the already “tested and proven to work” solution. And as

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

2017-04-15 Thread Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev
Hello, It is hard for me to come out disagreeing with Maxwell, however in this case I feel I must. As many may remember, there was quite some controversy about the BIP16 vs BIP 17 split; the main argument for BIP16 was the urgency of P2SH, and how this was the already “tested and proven to