Author: Hampus Sjöberg 2017-05-23 09:47:48
Published on: 2017-05-23T09:47:48+00:00
The discussion among core developers about implementing BIP148 has caused some disagreement. Some are in favor of allowing an optional configuration switch that defaults off but signals and enforces BIP148 when used. However, others argue against this switch because it creates a new consensus rule that softforks out non-segwit signaling blocks in an arbitrary time period, which could be disruptive. Segwit was designed so that older unmodified miners can continue operating without interruption after segwit activates. This means that older nodes will not include segwit spends, and their blocks will not be invalid even if they do not have segwit support. However, many BIP148 advocates seem to assume that segwit already has significant support, which may not be the case. If we decide to pursue a "user-activated" deployment of segwit, it is recommended that we do so more carefully than BIP 148 or 149 currently suggest. The email also includes contact information for Steven Pine, as well as a link to the mailing list subscription page.Overall, the conversation around BIP148 has been contentious. While some developers believe in allowing an optional configuration switch, others worry that it would introduce a new consensus rule that could be disruptive. There is also debate about the level of support for segwit and whether a "user-activated" deployment is the best approach. Despite the disagreements, the bitcoin-dev mailing list continues to provide a platform for productive discussion on these important issues.
Updated on: 2023-06-12T00:10:36.077750+00:00