hard-fork "X+Y" compromise discussion re-run

hard-fork "X+Y" compromise discussion re-run
From: Adam Back @ 2017-04-01 13:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Dev;  bitcoin-discuss

I agree with everything Matt said.  This "X+Y" "compromise" is not a
new proposal and has been hashed over multiple times in the past
dating back to at least fall 2015, ignores basically all design
considerations and research over the last  years, doesn't understand
the real-politic of the delays, and so doesn't even help in the
political domain.

I have taken the liberty of making a reddit thread with some of the
previous explainers about why this doesn't work in practice (even
ignoring all politics and hypothetically assuming it was a great
all-new idea), let the discussion commence!

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/62rrlv/how_about_a_new_compromise_activate_the_existing/

UASF is a more logical step, than these "X+Y" politically motivated
hard-forks, though UASF has risks vs SegWit BIPs in flight, the delay
and risk is far lower than political hard-forks.

I have set the reply-to to bitcoin-discuss.

Adam


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]