On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 02:12:08AM -0400, shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Someone sent me a copy of the Barry Silbert agreement, an agreement forged > between a select number of participants https://pastebin.com/VuCYteJh
It's interesting how changing the bit used to signal could be used as a way to try to trick people into changing node software ASAP to support the hard-fork code. Basically, the narrative would be that other software *doesn't* support segwit, so you have to upgrade right away. > A fourth option, first suggested to me by James Hilliard, was to make BIP148 > miner triggered (MASF) with a lower threshold, above 50%. I coded this up a > few weeks ago > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...shaolinfry:segsignal but > didnt get around to posting to the ML yet. This effectively lowers the > threshold from 95% to 65% as coded, or could be upped to 80% or whatever was > preferable. In contrast this proposal wouldn't have that effect, because as you point out it's compatibel with the existing segwit protocol once activated. Smells like political engineering to me. -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
