📅 Original date posted:2017-04-19
📝 Original message: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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170419/045f3e4a/attachment.html>;
Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] /
npub1y2…5taj0
2023-06-07 18:00:12
in reply to nevent1q…un9e
Author Public Key
npub1y22yec0znyzw8qndy5qn5c2wgejkj0k9zsqra7kvrd6cd6896z4qm5taj0Published at
2023-06-07 18:00:12Event JSON
{
"id": "fc2b2a931d1d7811f64d381a876dbbe37f659ec5799af3ae3289eec019495f4f",
"pubkey": "22944ce1e29904e3826d25013a614e4665693ec514003efacc1b7586e8e5d0aa",
"created_at": 1686160812,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5d1e64c970da07b0178aa4b0869114a6c0b54023e99bc79f83d180601afc646b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"37634612ac863a575dc9d868b21b04597d05d5cee177aa019853020ce27a9172",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-04-19\n📝 Original message:The \"UASF movement\" seems a bit premature to me - I doubt UASF will be\nnecessary if a WTXID commitment is tried first. I think that should be\nfirst-efforts focus.\n\nOn Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e triggering BIP141 activation, and therefore not enabling the new\n\u003e\u003e consensus rules on already deployed full nodes. BIP148 is making an\n\u003e\u003e explicit choice to favor dragging along those users which have upgraded to\n\u003e\u003e BIP141 support over those miners who have failed to upgrade.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e I do not follow the argument that a critical design feature of a\n\u003e particular \"user activated soft fork\" could be that it is users don't need\n\u003e to be involved. If the goal is user activation I would think that the\n\u003e expectation would be that the overwhelming majority of users would be\n\u003e upgrading to do it, if that isn't the case, then it isn't really a user\n\u003e activated softfork-- it's something else.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On an aside, I'm somewhat disappointed that you have decided to make a\n\u003e\u003e public statement against the UASF proposal. Not because we disagree -- that\n\u003e\u003e is fine -- but because any UASF must be a grassroots effort and\n\u003e\u003e endorsements (or denouncements) detract from that.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e So it has to be supported by the public but I can't say why I don't\n\u003e support it? This seems extremely suspect to me.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170419/045f3e4a/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "4ec909899a29516deb8e93bb8f601a37a2679857835373f33d4069c1dc0d52c39943ed9304affd45569be9f9b62ac41f133c5ea8b98114ffe244694f6c1aaa70"
}