📅 Original date posted:2017-04-15
📝 Original message:Greg,
If I understand correctly, the crux of your argument against BIP148 is that
it requires the segwit BIP9 activation flag to be set in every block after
Aug 1st, until segwit activates. This will cause miners which have not
upgrade and indicated support for BIP141 (the segwit BIP) to find their
blocks ignored by UASF nodes, at least for the month or two it takes to
activate segwit.
Isn't this however the entire point of BIP148? I understand if you object
to this, but let's be clear that this is a design requirement of the
proposal, not a technical oversight. The alternative you present (new BIP
bit) has the clear downside of not 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.
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.
Mark Friedenbach
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170415/af2462dc/attachment-0001.html>;
Mark Friedenbach [ARCHIVE] /
npub1r3…48d0u
2023-06-07 18:00:12
in reply to nevent1q…yxex
Author Public Key
npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0uPublished at
2023-06-07 18:00:12Event JSON
{
"id": "82dfaec8bacbd69acb8a408b3b45d79f920af9a04a9435a3ab05c0b4f8b9a0a9",
"pubkey": "1c61d995949cbfaf14f767784e166bde865c7b8783d7aa3bf0a1d014b70c0069",
"created_at": 1686160812,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5d1e64c970da07b0178aa4b0869114a6c0b54023e99bc79f83d180601afc646b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"ec93fea151bd1e36793b5a8d59d7f69cb67daf74276bee5fce8a24964066c508",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"06e56f9c048be33afaaac95b4e253cc6da954f51bdfa9a30eaf7ddb147c1de98"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-04-15\n📝 Original message:Greg,\n\nIf I understand correctly, the crux of your argument against BIP148 is that\nit requires the segwit BIP9 activation flag to be set in every block after\nAug 1st, until segwit activates. This will cause miners which have not\nupgrade and indicated support for BIP141 (the segwit BIP) to find their\nblocks ignored by UASF nodes, at least for the month or two it takes to\nactivate segwit.\n\nIsn't this however the entire point of BIP148? I understand if you object\nto this, but let's be clear that this is a design requirement of the\nproposal, not a technical oversight. The alternative you present (new BIP\nbit) has the clear downside of not triggering BIP141 activation, and\ntherefore not enabling the new consensus rules on already deployed full\nnodes. BIP148 is making an explicit choice to favor dragging along those\nusers which have upgraded to BIP141 support over those miners who have\nfailed to upgrade.\n\nOn an aside, I'm somewhat disappointed that you have decided to make a\npublic statement against the UASF proposal. Not because we disagree -- that\nis fine -- but because any UASF must be a grassroots effort and\nendorsements (or denouncements) detract from that.\n\nMark Friedenbach\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170415/af2462dc/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "3c7f8f80586e93b772354d10567a286be443d710200f9194610e027de18dffcfdd296838071fde0480b7a3f2da8c3f8ce956349713c06726fe6093e2306edb88"
}