đź“… Original date posted:2020-01-12
đź“ť Original message:On Saturday 11 January 2020 14:42:07 Anthony Towns wrote:
> the UASF approach had significant potential technical problems
> Â Â Â Â (potential for long reorgs, p2p network splits) that weren't
> Â Â Â Â resolved by the time it became active.
Long reorgs, only for old nodes, were a possibility, but not a problem.
The p2p network split issues WERE resolved well before activation.
(In fact, Bitcoin Knots still ships with the general p2p fixes.)
> Â Â Â Â neither
> Â Â Â Â BIP-148 or BIP-91 gained enough consensus to be supported in
> Â Â Â Â bitcoin core though
There was no measurable difference in community support between BIP148 and
Segwit itself, months before BIP148's activation. (There was about 20% that
indicated they would support BIP148 "only if Bitcoin Core releases it", which
IMO "counts" in this context.)
The only difference was in the opinions of developers. Basing the decision to
exclude BIP148 as even an *option* on this basis was IMO improper and
shouldn't be repeated. The community's readiness to switch to another
fork/build for UASFs is also valuable, but shouldn't be necessary.
Luke
Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tf…rfq0n
2023-06-07 18:22:17
in reply to nevent1q…rn7t
Author Public Key
npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nPublished at
2023-06-07 18:22:17Event JSON
{
"id": "39b7a29b65e086f4747da186dd27e213297b15cebcad86da6d9ca0d7d6c8620f",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686162137,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"841b1723b46d2192c57b523c3e08b52e866795609acdd0d30e830bbd3f4a039e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"209d81c67c6103f728cc62d88fc267a38ad1cb778f220321f3a94176bb2ae213",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f0feda6ad58ea9f486e469f87b3b9996494363a26982b864667c5d8acb0542ab"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2020-01-12\n📝 Original message:On Saturday 11 January 2020 14:42:07 Anthony Towns wrote:\n\u003e the UASF approach had significant potential technical problems\n\u003e     (potential for long reorgs, p2p network splits) that weren't\n\u003e     resolved by the time it became active.\n\nLong reorgs, only for old nodes, were a possibility, but not a problem.\n\nThe p2p network split issues WERE resolved well before activation.\n(In fact, Bitcoin Knots still ships with the general p2p fixes.)\n\n\u003e     neither \n\u003e     BIP-148 or BIP-91 gained enough consensus to be supported in\n\u003e     bitcoin core though\n\nThere was no measurable difference in community support between BIP148 and \nSegwit itself, months before BIP148's activation. (There was about 20% that \nindicated they would support BIP148 \"only if Bitcoin Core releases it\", which \nIMO \"counts\" in this context.)\n\nThe only difference was in the opinions of developers. Basing the decision to \nexclude BIP148 as even an *option* on this basis was IMO improper and \nshouldn't be repeated. The community's readiness to switch to another \nfork/build for UASFs is also valuable, but shouldn't be necessary.\n\nLuke",
"sig": "a6fc91f0f1e986957ce760d03cc5e6242130bc5a0119db4cfbaa09d2e3400ad22adb92f6301fffe432b553cd6e5fed934b4bdc8e350fa0f2ac42f13311165464"
}