@torusJKL
Wouldn't validation and propagation be enough for good faith?
I'd say yes, Segwit is a soft fork, and BU not being apart of the NY agreement won't be impeding the agreement by validation and propagation segwit blocks, BU is cooperating to allow it to succeed.
I don't feel we need to implement Segwit and enforce it and fores Segwit on the network**. Cooperation to allow Segwit to succeed on its own merit is my preferred approach.
Will this go through a regular BUIP process and member voting?
That was my understanding. The "our primary version" of BU is the V0.12 fork from Core, and we should work to preserve it, it's a different approach to the Core approach and I believe that gives the network more resilience.
In my mind the V0.12 fork is the base for BU, one option for the up coming BUIP is to take the btc1 implementation and add AD-EC to the implementation, this would be the version that would keep miners using AD-EC, and allow miners who want to enforce Segwit to do so, **unfortunately that is what most of our mining customers want at the moment, not all which makes me feel this is the best approach.
Another option is to take that further and add X-thin to that release, More work the risk of re-basing the 0.12 fork with 0.14.x, could would result in loss of lots of work done to date, over 2 years in fact.
From V0.12 to V0.14 Core could have introduced 0-Day bugs hidden in complexity
@Justus Ranvier has called out BS/Core developers (i think Peter Todd) proposing this as a strategy and I expect it to be leveraged with brc1 given Samson and Louke-Jr have just spent a lot of
effort (successfully) speeding the rummer in japan that Segwit is safe and Segwit2X is not in. I would say this could be part of their plan to get people to abandon the 2X fork and follow the 1MB chain.
I see no future for Segwit in an environment where there are no transaction limits, and I see no future for BU where there is Segwit and an enforced transaction limit. Segwit and an enforced limit facilitates cartel behavior where miners profit from cooperating to limit transaction capacity. The negative impact of this behavior is forcing future growth off chain in the pursuit of short term profit at the expense of long term survival and growth. Mike Hearn described this leading up to
his rage quit.
Going back to the success formula that allowed BU to grow, we should do what is needed to allow the network to flourish and in time miners will adopt it (and abandon Segwit). BU has an industry partner who is capable of making that happen.
I would also be interested in what
@theZerg and
@Peter Tschipper the prominent BU developers think.
