On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@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
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> The alternative [Greg presents] (new BIP bit) has the clear downside
> of not triggering BIP141 activation, and therefore not enabling the
> new consensus rules on already deployed full nodes. BIP148 is making
> an explicit
Greg,
If I understand correctly, the crux of your argument against BIP148 is that
it requires the segwit BIP9 activation flag to be set in every block after
Aug 1st, until segwit activates. This will cause miners which have not
upgrade and indicated support for BIP141 (the segwit BIP) to find thei
> Besides that, I also just don't believe that UASF itself as a method to
activate softforks is a good choice. The only two reliable signals we have
for this purpose in Bitcoin are block height (flag day) and standard miner
signaling, as every other metric can be falsified or gamed.
UASF can be ju
Den 15 apr. 2017 13:51 skrev "Chris Acheson via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
Not sure if you missed my previous reply to you, but I'm curious about
your thoughts on this particular point. I contend that for any UASF,
orphaning non-signalling blocks on the flag date is [m
On 04/15/2017 03:04 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Considering that you did not spare a single word about the specific
> property that I am concerned about-- that the proposal will reject
> the blocks of passive participants, due to avoidable design
> limitations-- I can't help but f
Thank-you for your prompt response,
I believe I must have a different prospective of Bitcoin to you. Ideologically
I don’t agree that miners can be passive participants in the Bitcoin Network;
and I certainly don’t see them acting as passive participants in the Bitcoin
Community now.
The mine
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Cameron Garnham wrote:
> As many may remember, there was quite some controversy about the BIP16 vs BIP
> 17 split; the main argument for BIP16 was the urgency of P2SH, and how this
> was the already “tested and proven to work” solution.
And as a result we ultima