📅 Original date posted:2017-05-23
📝 Original message:On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Correct me if I am wrong, but currently core developers are arguing over
> whether or not to allow an optional configuration switch which defaults off
> but signals and enforces BIP148 when used. Who are we protecting users from,
> themselves? Are you protecting core? from what? I am somewhat genuinely
> befuddled by those who can't even allow a user config switch to be set.
Essentially, if we make a potentially very harmful option easy to
enable for users, we are putting them at risk, so yes, this is about
protecting users of the base Bitcoin Core implementation. Users have,
hopefully, come to appreciate this implementation for the peer
review-based strict development process, and making a hasty decision
due to time constraints (segwit activation expiration) may have
undesirable consequences. Opinions among the regular contributors are
split on the matter, which to me is an indication we should be
cautious and consider all aspects before making a decision on the
matter.
Karl Johan Alm [ARCHIVE] /
npub1e7…fg307
2023-06-07 18:00:40
in reply to nevent1q…x2hq
Author Public Key
npub1e7vdq905zr4xjr5nxuz58l9jcvffxq728ysl6m2xxgr024mjy5vq4fg307Published at
2023-06-07 18:00:40Event JSON
{
"id": "2613952338017a78fc3ec2749fc9d43bba465f68a8fed209dfdae745b1cb1340",
"pubkey": "cf98d015f410ea690e93370543fcb2c3129303ca3921fd6d463206f557722518",
"created_at": 1686160840,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c06ee6097348727fda4a61a8a33a97b78f73277ee2f8fff15f28bd47d0fed7eb",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4c026c934f75d26887119bfc7818903cffa80febfec02476ec5026ef29631b91",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2de03880b23f62972da5ea5cfd5e2640507c9cd83ed63122d39a86ca74f7fa3"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-05-23\n📝 Original message:On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Correct me if I am wrong, but currently core developers are arguing over\n\u003e whether or not to allow an optional configuration switch which defaults off\n\u003e but signals and enforces BIP148 when used. Who are we protecting users from,\n\u003e themselves? Are you protecting core? from what? I am somewhat genuinely\n\u003e befuddled by those who can't even allow a user config switch to be set.\n\nEssentially, if we make a potentially very harmful option easy to\nenable for users, we are putting them at risk, so yes, this is about\nprotecting users of the base Bitcoin Core implementation. Users have,\nhopefully, come to appreciate this implementation for the peer\nreview-based strict development process, and making a hasty decision\ndue to time constraints (segwit activation expiration) may have\nundesirable consequences. Opinions among the regular contributors are\nsplit on the matter, which to me is an indication we should be\ncautious and consider all aspects before making a decision on the\nmatter.",
"sig": "01283de8ba94d1aca50bc337d5dfc68af10fe80161f76b370122339ee61c831b71099b3085d1e78e8338834c8a4209760d81b22d71cf7353e5485955ccb98f6b"
}