- sipa – my opinion is that it would go against our principles to merge BIP148 into core
- jtimon – as said on the mailing list I think bip148 is rushed and that makes it risky
- gmaxwell – luke-jr: I haven't seen the kind of support required to justify your position on that; afaict so far no exchange or payment processor of note has said they would stick with 148. I think you'd have an argument if there was any of that, but right now I think it's hard to distinguish a subsanstive level of support. (And I've seen some clearly malicious parties pumping support for it too.)
- morcos – At the end of the day I think most of us have no interest in greatly increasing the risk of a devastating currency split. I think 148 does that..
- gmaxwell – luke-jr: there is a big difference between saying 'businesses get to decide' and saying that the fact that virtually no industry participant is resolute with 148 is a strong sign the support isn't significant enough.
- jonasschnelli – You can't measure "community"
- sipa – luke-jr: … my expectation is that every economically relevant full node will revert away from bip148 code hours after the hashrate fails to adopts it
- gmaxwell – I think it's (148) a very poor and needlessly risky approach.
- sipa – luke-jr: i think you're insane
- paveljanik – luke-jr, in reality, it can even be much worse. People could signal UASF but not enforce it.
- luke-jr – great, now we get ad hominems as argument
- sipa – luke-jr: apologies for the ad hominem… but i believe your argument it nonsense
- BlueMatt – luke-jr: would you like me to buy you a plane ticket so you can talk to people?
- BlueMatt – I'd be happy to.. you spend too much time on reddit and not talking to real people, I think
submitted by /u/CoinCadence
[link] [comments]