📅 Original date posted:2017-04-15
📝 Original message: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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170415/1328569c/attachment.html>;
Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1f2…crwet
2023-06-07 18:00:12
in reply to nevent1q…q84d
Author Public Key
npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetPublished at
2023-06-07 18:00:12Event JSON
{
"id": "37634612ac863a575dc9d868b21b04597d05d5cee177aa019853020ce27a9172",
"pubkey": "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73",
"created_at": 1686160812,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5d1e64c970da07b0178aa4b0869114a6c0b54023e99bc79f83d180601afc646b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"30eba204ad1028cc4528807d317af76bc7b952433ae5e800c9fdfe2c44ada768",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"2f55bf03677afdb15d004a39383afba6220aa6c059cafa7b8827b87934d3c254"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-04-15\n📝 Original message:On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e triggering BIP141 activation, and therefore not enabling the new consensus\n\u003e rules on already deployed full nodes. BIP148 is making an explicit choice\n\u003e to favor dragging along those users which have upgraded to BIP141 support\n\u003e over those miners who have failed to upgrade.\n\u003e\n\nI do not follow the argument that a critical design feature of a particular\n\"user activated soft fork\" could be that it is users don't need to be\ninvolved. If the goal is user activation I would think that the\nexpectation would be that the overwhelming majority of users would be\nupgrading to do it, if that isn't the case, then it isn't really a user\nactivated softfork-- it's something else.\n\n\n\u003e On an aside, I'm somewhat disappointed that you have decided to make a\n\u003e public statement against the UASF proposal. Not because we disagree -- that\n\u003e is fine -- but because any UASF must be a grassroots effort and\n\u003e endorsements (or denouncements) detract from that.\n\u003e\n\nSo it has to be supported by the public but I can't say why I don't support\nit? This seems extremely suspect to me.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170415/1328569c/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "480feb0bbb0d09f5091188d645fb9dcc0cc22418a7af2ed18e51c901ab578fed9f3f0d4879669d6939f0b87d93a4ccd2a238b4f92d4a3ef7e09823afb85a1892"
}