[bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF - page 2.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

I do not understand the distinction:

Quote

There have been some other UASF proposals that avoid the forced
disruption-- by just defining a new witness bit and allowing
non-upgraded-to-uasf miners and nodes to continue as non-upgraded

Any rollout of segwit must include majority hash power
to avoid a network split and that seems to be the overarching
factor here. For that reason, I don't see how any UASF
makes sense. If you want less than 95% consensus from
miners, then just do that. No need to tap dance around it
with spoofable metrics and vague descriptions of "broad support".

praxeology

newbie

Activity: 18

Merit: 2

Gregory Maxwell,

> 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.

Oh... so _that_ comes out. I do not care what the majority wants. The majority of people are thieves if they could get away with it. Consider this: Lets propose a policy where the world can vote on taking half of the current Bitcoin owner's coins away and evenly distributing them to each world citizen. Screw that, I've had enough of that. Distributed money doesn't have to be that way.

Lets stop with the whole soft/hard fork designation when there are two disparate groups with conflicting preferences on a policy change. Soft/Hard doesn't matter anymore. Its just a fork.

I want SegWit. I'm perfectly happy w/ forking the money supply I use from the people who don't want SegWit. I just want replay attack prevention.

To all of you out there who want sound money, this is our song:
Green Day - Minority
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDBlqu6KF4k

Cheers,
Praxeology Guy

praxeology

newbie

Activity: 18

Merit: 2

Starting this thread in response to Gregory Maxwell's post on the bitcoin developer mailing list:

"I do not support the BIP 148 UASF"
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/014152.html

For people who would like to comment, but cannot due to tighter moderation restrictions on the dev mailing list.

Topic: [bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF - page 2. (Read 3533 times)