Author: Jorge Timón 2017-05-23 13:20:10
Published on: 2017-05-23T13:20:10+00:00
In a discussion on bitcoin-dev, Karl Johan Alm expressed concern that making a potentially harmful option easy for users to enable puts them at risk. Luke Dashjr responded by saying that not enforcing BIP148 actually puts users at more risk and that since developers are divided in opinion, there should at least be an option to let users decide. Dashjr then went on to comment that he feels BIP148 is rushed and unnecessarily risky and that he supports UASF and BIP8 as replacements for BIP9 for future deployments.Dashjr also remarked that perhaps BIP149 can be modified to activate earlier if the current proposal is perceived as unnecessarily cautious. In addition, he disagreed with the idea that BIP148 is less risky than BIP149. Finally, he noted that one of his complaints about BIP109 was that it was rushed in how fast it could activate.
Updated on: 2023-06-12T00:12:43.742632+00:00