📅 Original date posted:2017-07-10
📝 Original message:On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Regarding the timeline, its certainly rather short, but also is the UASF BIP
> 148 ultimatum.
This is correct. If you are trying to imply that makes the short
timeline here right, you are falling for a "tu quoque" fallacy.
> More than 80% of the miners and many users are willing to go in the Segwit2x
> direction.
There's no logical reason I can think of (and I've heard many attempts
at explaining it) for miners to consider segwit bad for Bitcoin but
segwitx2 harmless. But I don't see 80% hashrate support for bip141, so
your claim doesn't seem accurate for the segwit part, let alone the
more controversial hardfork part.
I read some people controlling mining pools that control 80% of the
hashrate signed a paper saying they would "support segwit
immediately". Either what I read wasn't true, or the signed paper is
just a proof of the signing pool operators word being something we
cannot trust.
So where does this 80% figure come from? How can we trust the source?
> I want a Bitcoin united. But maybe a split of Bitcoin, each side with its
> own vision, is not so bad.
It would be unfortunate to split the network into 2 coins only because
of lack of patience for deploying non-urgent consensus changes like a
size increase or disagreements about the right time schedule.
I think anything less than 1 year after release of tested code by some
implementation would be irresponsible for any hardfork, even a very
simple one.
Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx…cl2d8
2023-06-07 18:04:05
in reply to nevent1q…7n5s
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8Published at
2023-06-07 18:04:05Event JSON
{
"id": "4792752223c1f0dfe8e99d642520231592db4d75ef1cd6967875839c8278356d",
"pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84",
"created_at": 1686161045,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"74e46143b6146bfbf41855e76069c36a2cf73fb16bb2644a1bf3b792696fbbf0",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"8d29ed88f23fd9a4f8b4579dd6c3e5e5b8bd1dcaa5f3e440ac3b1318bd9c52ec",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4b38603408f5be002091210e869a4ca86fc2aa1ffd0871036a0668068ee626ee"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-07-10\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Regarding the timeline, its certainly rather short, but also is the UASF BIP\n\u003e 148 ultimatum.\n\nThis is correct. If you are trying to imply that makes the short\ntimeline here right, you are falling for a \"tu quoque\" fallacy.\n\n\u003e More than 80% of the miners and many users are willing to go in the Segwit2x\n\u003e direction.\n\nThere's no logical reason I can think of (and I've heard many attempts\nat explaining it) for miners to consider segwit bad for Bitcoin but\nsegwitx2 harmless. But I don't see 80% hashrate support for bip141, so\nyour claim doesn't seem accurate for the segwit part, let alone the\nmore controversial hardfork part.\n\nI read some people controlling mining pools that control 80% of the\nhashrate signed a paper saying they would \"support segwit\nimmediately\". Either what I read wasn't true, or the signed paper is\njust a proof of the signing pool operators word being something we\ncannot trust.\n\nSo where does this 80% figure come from? How can we trust the source?\n\n\u003e I want a Bitcoin united. But maybe a split of Bitcoin, each side with its\n\u003e own vision, is not so bad.\n\nIt would be unfortunate to split the network into 2 coins only because\nof lack of patience for deploying non-urgent consensus changes like a\nsize increase or disagreements about the right time schedule.\nI think anything less than 1 year after release of tested code by some\nimplementation would be irresponsible for any hardfork, even a very\nsimple one.",
"sig": "904dcab0790e6b039a7aa13992a504bf00c43ac425c2eeace4082f95a2d00d91fda5795ef3d210944ec9d9cb4f36ea3818cd6ece319a602694c73489d047240b"
}