š
Original date posted:2017-05-02
š Original message:If the flag day for a wtxid commitment is timed before the current segwit
period end, I suspect segwit would activate within the current period.
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170502/0cee5728/attachment.html>;
Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] /
npub1y2ā¦5taj0
2023-06-07 18:00:38
in reply to nevent1qā¦0yxh
Author Public Key
npub1y22yec0znyzw8qndy5qn5c2wgejkj0k9zsqra7kvrd6cd6896z4qm5taj0Published at
2023-06-07 18:00:38Event JSON
{
"id": "a716f7eeb201fc64e65881d2d923d407cfe5676e48fd55b464381f2943e005ca",
"pubkey": "22944ce1e29904e3826d25013a614e4665693ec514003efacc1b7586e8e5d0aa",
"created_at": 1686160838,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c06ee6097348727fda4a61a8a33a97b78f73277ee2f8fff15f28bd47d0fed7eb",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a23dbf6c6cc83e14cc3df4e56cc71845f611908084cfe620e83e40c06ccdd3d0"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2017-05-02\nš Original message:If the flag day for a wtxid commitment is timed before the current segwit\nperiod end, I suspect segwit would activate within the current period.\n\nOn Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Tuesday 25 April 2017 6:28:14 PM Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...\n\u003e shaolinfry:uasegwit-f\n\u003e \u003e \u003e lagday\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e I believe this approach would satisfy the more measured approach\n\u003e expected\n\u003e \u003e \u003e for Bitcoin and does not have the issues you brought up about BIP148.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e I have not reviewed it carefully yet, but I agree that it addresses my\n\u003e \u003e main concern! I think this is a much better approach. Thanks.\n\u003e\n\u003e FWIW, I disagree in this case. I think given the circumstances, if we are\n\u003e going to do a UASF for segwit at all, we need a clearly decisive outcome,\n\u003e which is given by BIP 148. Using the approach in BIP 8 makes sense in many\n\u003e cases, but in this case, it is liable to simply create a prolonged\n\u003e uncertainty\n\u003e where nobody knows the outcome when segwit's rules are challenged by a\n\u003e malicious miner.\n\u003e\n\u003e If BIP 148 fails to achieve widespread support, we could do a BIP 8-based\n\u003e UASF\n\u003e with Segwit v2 (along with some other changes I suggested in the other\n\u003e thread), but I think the tradeoffs right now favour BIP 148 as the best\n\u003e UASF\n\u003e deployment.\n\u003e\n\u003e Luke\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-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170502/0cee5728/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "a65191fcbad56fbfd3c01dbdccc4d08182debb5d5653340b66f5ccd2825362d570d56fbd060ba51aa0870a767834653c21d1d682c77347e2295a1ae1b59d912e"
}