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 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.
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
