On Tuesday 25 April 2017 6:28:14 PM Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...shaolinfry:uasegwit-f > > lagday > > > > I believe this approach would satisfy the more measured approach expected > > for Bitcoin and does not have the issues you brought up about BIP148. > > I have not reviewed it carefully yet, but I agree that it addresses my > main concern! I think this is a much better approach. Thanks.
FWIW, I disagree in this case. I think given the circumstances, if we are going to do a UASF for segwit at all, we need a clearly decisive outcome, which is given by BIP 148. Using the approach in BIP 8 makes sense in many cases, but in this case, it is liable to simply create a prolonged uncertainty where nobody knows the outcome when segwit's rules are challenged by a malicious miner. If BIP 148 fails to achieve widespread support, we could do a BIP 8-based UASF with Segwit v2 (along with some other changes I suggested in the other thread), but I think the tradeoffs right now favour BIP 148 as the best UASF deployment. Luke _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
