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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D0E2BCC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:47:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E3602EC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:47:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 27D9B38ABA7D;
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:46:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:170425:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::GrmKT8LJ=DuSi3YX:aPVFi
X-Hashcash: 1:25:170425:greg@xiph.org::cYHN=Hlicn8EQvK6:bYYs6
X-Hashcash: 1:25:170425:shaolinfry@protonmail.ch::zIlPYBAtfFlwWJEH:dX87f
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:46:09 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.9.16-gentoo; KDE/4.14.29; x86_64; ; )
References: <CAAS2fgRdSOu8N6L3+fBpnye+rM+W6+F=cePy=9oL4tJuCj=Jsw@mail.gmail.com>
<X8k9ENqIddjVtibis1I8dLjHNxIUao0rLwZzpyoCNuWlc6Umgu7huGsbBWGhVY6Jd2XEUOVO8MxkgYKTyaNJ23nJbrE8dz7b8JKTBoE5Ljo=@protonmail.ch>
<CAAS2fgQzd9J3iNMRfW+x1QnqMFAHx89+GTXEt0SWm6+USZniDA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQzd9J3iNMRfW+x1QnqMFAHx89+GTXEt0SWm6+USZniDA@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201704251846.10793.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.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, 25 Apr 2017 18:47:40 -0000
On Tuesday 25 April 2017 6:28:14 PM Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...shaolinfry:uasegwit-f
> > lagday
> >
> > I believe this approach would satisfy the more measured approach expected
> > for Bitcoin and does not have the issues you brought up about BIP148.
>
> I have not reviewed it carefully yet, but I agree that it addresses my
> main concern! I think this is a much better approach. Thanks.
FWIW, I disagree in this case. I think given the circumstances, if we are
going to do a UASF for segwit at all, we need a clearly decisive outcome,
which is given by BIP 148. Using the approach in BIP 8 makes sense in many
cases, but in this case, it is liable to simply create a prolonged uncertainty
where nobody knows the outcome when segwit's rules are challenged by a
malicious miner.
If BIP 148 fails to achieve widespread support, we could do a BIP 8-based UASF
with Segwit v2 (along with some other changes I suggested in the other
thread), but I think the tradeoffs right now favour BIP 148 as the best UASF
deployment.
Luke
|
