Create account

replied 1957d
One possible BU defense would be a further SF to restrict CB outputs to a address, but I'm sure you can see how that would be another bad move (think existing donations & optics).

7/
1 / 6 1
600
replied 1957d
As I see it, such soft-forks would work against the ideals of BU to bolster and not to degrade the existing p2p cash system.

8/
1
600
replied 1957d
I opened another BUIP, it would ask to release a May version that contains any non-controversial updates, but simply not include orphaning based on some involuntary CB payouts.

9/
1
600
replied 1957d
In other words, to do on BU what this article is proposing to do with the ABC codebase in such a case:

https://read.cash/@SharkySharkdog/you-lead-and-maybe-i-will-follow-ff383504

10/
1
600
replied 1957d
Finally, another major reason not to go down the road to blacklisting any coinbase outputs:

I believe it would open the door to more requests from regulators / governments. Eeek.

11/
1
600
replied 1957d
Link to Memo poll on whether I should open another BUIP unless BUIP143 is amended.

https://memo.cash/post/05213910f1d09a05b781efaa75f12b1d8352ee99b58db70942c6c33a966845e6

12/
1
600
sickpig
replied 1957d
makes sense to make it explicit but to my eyes this come bundle w/ blacklisting. You basically introduce a precedent and remove plausible deniability when it will be most needed.
1
1,000


About Privacy Terms Stats