I do not support the BIP 148 UASF

Summary:

In a recent email to the bitcoin-dev mailing list, Gregory Maxwell expressed his support for Segwit and explained that he does not support the BIP148 User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) for some of the same reasons. Maxwell argued that Bitcoin is valuable because it has high security and stability, and Segwit was carefully designed to support and amplify this engineering integrity that people can count on now and into the future. He stated that the primary flaw in BIP148 is that by forcing the activation of the existing (non-UASF segwit) nodes it almost guarantees at a minor level of disruption. Segwit, on the other hand, was carefully engineered so that older unmodified miners could continue operating completely without interruption after segwit activates. Maxwell went on to say that he does not think that the BIP148 proposal meets the standard set by segwit itself or the existing best practices in protocol development in the community. He believes that the fastest support should not be the goal of the community, as there is always some reckless altcoin or centralized system that can support something faster than Bitcoin can. Trying to match that would only erode Bitcoin's distinguishing value in being well-engineered and stable. While Maxwell does not oppose the general concept of a UASF, he believes that generally, a soft-fork (of any kind) does not need to risk disruption of mining, just as segwit's activation does not. He argued that we should use the least disruptive mechanisms available and that the BIP148 proposal does not meet that test. Maxwell concluded by saying that we should have patience with regard to activating segwit, as Bitcoin is a system that should last for all ages and power mankind for a long time. Ten years from now, a couple of years of dispute will seem like nothing. But the reputation we earn for stability and integrity, for being a system of money people can count on, will mean everything.

Updated on: 2023-06-12T00:08:48.468711+00:00