📅 Original date posted:2017-04-25
📝 Original message: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
Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tf…rfq0n
2023-06-07 18:00:11
in reply to nevent1q…2y79
Author Public Key
npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nPublished at
2023-06-07 18:00:11Event JSON
{
"id": "fbd01d4b408ad41ff9aaf49edd30c4c64950b1beb69c6de8fff62cb6f6aa43ad",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686160811,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5d1e64c970da07b0178aa4b0869114a6c0b54023e99bc79f83d180601afc646b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1f63c64680c7dda6cdd05345e0a322c23d6aeb2aa19ed2e39d995ebd37953c34",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-04-25\n📝 Original message:On Tuesday 25 April 2017 6:28:14 PM Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...shaolinfry:uasegwit-f\n\u003e \u003e lagday\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e I believe this approach would satisfy the more measured approach expected\n\u003e \u003e for Bitcoin and does not have the issues you brought up about BIP148.\n\u003e \n\u003e I have not reviewed it carefully yet, but I agree that it addresses my\n\u003e main concern! I think this is a much better approach. Thanks.\n\nFWIW, I disagree in this case. I think given the circumstances, if we are \ngoing to do a UASF for segwit at all, we need a clearly decisive outcome, \nwhich is given by BIP 148. Using the approach in BIP 8 makes sense in many \ncases, but in this case, it is liable to simply create a prolonged uncertainty \nwhere nobody knows the outcome when segwit's rules are challenged by a \nmalicious miner.\n\nIf BIP 148 fails to achieve widespread support, we could do a BIP 8-based UASF \nwith Segwit v2 (along with some other changes I suggested in the other \nthread), but I think the tradeoffs right now favour BIP 148 as the best UASF \ndeployment.\n\nLuke",
"sig": "f701f6bf01e87c9e1fc021161cf6783c25bcde4224161a2674ab20edc22a380f346cd2c0768b16c8d7ac8640c6b319483c82c8010701f6b440b74670000954b8"
}