📅 Original date posted:2017-04-15
📝 Original message:I don't want to be rude and I will refer to your expertise, but segwit does
have a 'time out' as defined in BIP 9 with the date of November 15th? Does
core plan on just releasing another BIP with a new timeout hoping it will
eventually get 95% census?
As for the other point, we can play semantics but that's boring, I guess my
meaning was every census change has gone through a core defined process
(not counting the changes that occurred before there were BIPs and such),
isn't that the case? If the currently discussed UASF goes through it would
seem like the first time census occurred outside core's mailing list of
pull requests, acks, and merge to master, I only note it as a thing of
interest.
To be clear, the fast and reckless part for you is the mechanism by which
segwit could possibly be made active? Do you envision a means of segwit
being made consensus that does not have 95% mining support?
I appreciate your time and expertise, and to not take up anymore, back to
lurking i go.
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Gregory Maxwell <greg at xiph.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Regarding this last point I was under the impression that if Segwit did
> not
> > activate by November then core was going to move on, is that no longer
> the
>
> Wow. Where did you get that idea? That is _absurd_ and untrue, and I
> struggle a bit to even comprehend how someone could believe it. It
> would continue until something clearly better came along or people
> lost interest in it, why would it be anything else?
>
> > census change that was not rolled out and done by the core team? I only
> > mention this because BIP148, if it goes ahead (and is successful), would
> be
> > the first time a consensus change occurs outside of the core developers
> --
> > but again I am not an expert on the history of changes and could be
> wrong, I
>
> There is a definitional issue there. There isn't much of "the core
> team" there is a lot of amorphous public collaboration; everything
> ends up being retroactively defined as the core team. With open
> participation and hundreds of contributors and software running
> everywhere in the network, its unlikely that someone would advance to
> the point of being able to make a credible proposal without at some
> point making some improvement to the project or without the help of
> someone who has.
>
> In some sense you are coming very close to asking for a list of people
> who have contributed to Bitcoin without contributing to Bitcoin.
>
> CLTV was a proposal by Peter Todd whom has done a number of other
> things in core but AFAIR had no involvement in any prior soft-fork
> (though perhaps I'm forgetting one?), though he subsequently
> contributed to BIP66 (which activated before CLTV), and he contributed
> mostly after-the fact review of segwit. CSV was mostly the work of
> Mark Friedenbach whom I believe was not involved in any prior or
> subsequent soft-fork (and whos total contributions to Bitcoin core
> weigh in at 14 commits over 5 years).
>
> > My impression is that the community is ready for this and wants it, and
> if
> > that impression is correct it will go ahead. No one knows the future, and
> > simply assuming it's better to be slow and methodical isn't especially
>
> I am not suggesting slow. I am suggesting that we not be outright
> reckless. Some people are expecting changes which are effectively
> orders of magnitude faster than changes in centralized systems
> elsewhere which are far easier and safer to take quickly.
>
> (Some more comparatives here:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/65bch8/gregory_maxwell_i_do_not_
> support_the_bip_148_uasf/dg9xfam/
> )
>
> > Technology is in someways the history of failure,
>
> By all means, take risks-- but you don't get to choose to make other
> peoples things fail; you certainly don't get to demand their support,
> though you could try to earn it if you care, by figuring out how to
> meet their concerns.
>
--
Steven Pine
(510) 517-7075
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170415/e046d7dd/attachment.html>;
Steven Pine [ARCHIVE] /
npub17t…kadm9
2023-06-07 18:00:07
in reply to nevent1q…zh08
Author Public Key
npub17t0q8zqty0mzjuk6t6jul40zvszs0jwds0kkxy3d8x5xef60073sckadm9Published at
2023-06-07 18:00:07Event JSON
{
"id": "67d27db491c587b655862e02ccfe1eda7c3c22daa5515d06b8f3de7aa610e313",
"pubkey": "f2de03880b23f62972da5ea5cfd5e2640507c9cd83ed63122d39a86ca74f7fa3",
"created_at": 1686160807,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5d1e64c970da07b0178aa4b0869114a6c0b54023e99bc79f83d180601afc646b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4e4ee17caec3a65c5fa818dfe19a6944ff2e6298e5a5bd3c66748fe440ad3b88",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-04-15\n📝 Original message:I don't want to be rude and I will refer to your expertise, but segwit does\nhave a 'time out' as defined in BIP 9 with the date of November 15th? Does\ncore plan on just releasing another BIP with a new timeout hoping it will\neventually get 95% census?\n\nAs for the other point, we can play semantics but that's boring, I guess my\nmeaning was every census change has gone through a core defined process\n(not counting the changes that occurred before there were BIPs and such),\nisn't that the case? If the currently discussed UASF goes through it would\nseem like the first time census occurred outside core's mailing list of\npull requests, acks, and merge to master, I only note it as a thing of\ninterest.\n\nTo be clear, the fast and reckless part for you is the mechanism by which\nsegwit could possibly be made active? Do you envision a means of segwit\nbeing made consensus that does not have 95% mining support?\n\nI appreciate your time and expertise, and to not take up anymore, back to\nlurking i go.\n\n\nOn Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Gregory Maxwell \u003cgreg at xiph.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Regarding this last point I was under the impression that if Segwit did\n\u003e not\n\u003e \u003e activate by November then core was going to move on, is that no longer\n\u003e the\n\u003e\n\u003e Wow. Where did you get that idea? That is _absurd_ and untrue, and I\n\u003e struggle a bit to even comprehend how someone could believe it. It\n\u003e would continue until something clearly better came along or people\n\u003e lost interest in it, why would it be anything else?\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e census change that was not rolled out and done by the core team? I only\n\u003e \u003e mention this because BIP148, if it goes ahead (and is successful), would\n\u003e be\n\u003e \u003e the first time a consensus change occurs outside of the core developers\n\u003e --\n\u003e \u003e but again I am not an expert on the history of changes and could be\n\u003e wrong, I\n\u003e\n\u003e There is a definitional issue there. There isn't much of \"the core\n\u003e team\" there is a lot of amorphous public collaboration; everything\n\u003e ends up being retroactively defined as the core team. With open\n\u003e participation and hundreds of contributors and software running\n\u003e everywhere in the network, its unlikely that someone would advance to\n\u003e the point of being able to make a credible proposal without at some\n\u003e point making some improvement to the project or without the help of\n\u003e someone who has.\n\u003e\n\u003e In some sense you are coming very close to asking for a list of people\n\u003e who have contributed to Bitcoin without contributing to Bitcoin.\n\u003e\n\u003e CLTV was a proposal by Peter Todd whom has done a number of other\n\u003e things in core but AFAIR had no involvement in any prior soft-fork\n\u003e (though perhaps I'm forgetting one?), though he subsequently\n\u003e contributed to BIP66 (which activated before CLTV), and he contributed\n\u003e mostly after-the fact review of segwit. CSV was mostly the work of\n\u003e Mark Friedenbach whom I believe was not involved in any prior or\n\u003e subsequent soft-fork (and whos total contributions to Bitcoin core\n\u003e weigh in at 14 commits over 5 years).\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e My impression is that the community is ready for this and wants it, and\n\u003e if\n\u003e \u003e that impression is correct it will go ahead. No one knows the future, and\n\u003e \u003e simply assuming it's better to be slow and methodical isn't especially\n\u003e\n\u003e I am not suggesting slow. I am suggesting that we not be outright\n\u003e reckless. Some people are expecting changes which are effectively\n\u003e orders of magnitude faster than changes in centralized systems\n\u003e elsewhere which are far easier and safer to take quickly.\n\u003e\n\u003e (Some more comparatives here:\n\u003e https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/65bch8/gregory_maxwell_i_do_not_\n\u003e support_the_bip_148_uasf/dg9xfam/\n\u003e )\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e Technology is in someways the history of failure,\n\u003e\n\u003e By all means, take risks-- but you don't get to choose to make other\n\u003e peoples things fail; you certainly don't get to demand their support,\n\u003e though you could try to earn it if you care, by figuring out how to\n\u003e meet their concerns.\n\u003e\n\n\n\n-- \nSteven Pine\n(510) 517-7075\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170415/e046d7dd/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "01e4b8afc68bf706bfff3d193edf461333e0ffc73ad2028e740b85fae8152f17c4de84fbc01a568117ed3954ca514f4fb455d6a994bf1ded0281d363cde5e400"
}