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
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
|
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 C44C58A5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 12 Jul 2017 01:06:24 +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 3E700AC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 12 Jul 2017 01:06:24 +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 63E8838A16B2;
Wed, 12 Jul 2017 01:06:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:170712:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::=P//Q=3oi6z0=dty:Nb4W
X-Hashcash: 1:25:170712:sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com::sxCv+3bo0t39gieb:fbTU
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 01:06:14 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.9.16-gentoo; KDE/4.14.32; x86_64; ; )
References: <CAKzdR-qCmuj02yobAj9YDYq7Ed309z2VUaMtbL_i9vF3zkp5mw@mail.gmail.com>
<A7FFF8F7-9806-44F1-B68F-F83C44893365@ob1.io>
<CAKzdR-oRdX-fXyc6womZOyYyfHUJZdgh92FUMM8pR_QDNiJfkQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKzdR-oRdX-fXyc6womZOyYyfHUJZdgh92FUMM8pR_QDNiJfkQ@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-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201707120106.16951.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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 01:27:44 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP
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: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 01:06:25 -0000
On Monday 10 July 2017 11:50:33 AM Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Regarding the timeline, its certainly rather short, but also is the UASF
> BIP 148 ultimatum.
BIP148 began with 8 months lead time, reduced to 5 months from popular request
and technical considerations. There is nothing about BIP148 that compels an
attempted hardfork 90 days later - that could just as well have been 18
months.
> More than 80% of the miners and many users are willing to go in the
> Segwit2x direction. With the support and great talent of the Bitcoin Core
> developers, Segwit2x activation will not cause any major disruptions.
That's not true at all. Based on my observations, only approximately 20% of
the community follow Core's technical lead without significant consideration
of their own - and who knows if that would change if Core were to suggest
clearly-unsafe block size increases, or attempted to force a hardfork against
consensus. Even with Core's support, many people would oppose the hardfork
attempt, and it would fail.
> Without Core, there will be a temporary split. Both sides will have to
> hard-fork.
Segwit2x's hardfork does not compel the remaining Bitcoin users to also
hardfork.
> I want a Bitcoin united. But maybe a split of Bitcoin, each side with its
> own vision, is not so bad.
I concur, but I disagree your approach has any possibility of a united
Bitcoin. The only way to get that today, would be to do Segwit+Drivechain, not
Segwit+Hardfork.
Luke
|
