{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1e7vdq905zr4xjr5nxuz58l9jcvffxq728ysl6m2xxgr024mjy5vq4fg307","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1e7vdq905zr4xjr5nxuz58l9jcvffxq728ysl6m2xxgr024mjy5vq4fg307","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-05-23\n📝 Original message:On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Correct me if I am wrong, but currently core developers are arguing over\n\u003e whether or not to allow an optional configuration switch which defaults off\n\u003e but signals and enforces BIP148 when used. Who are we protecting users from,\n\u003e themselves? Are you protecting core? from what? I am somewhat genuinely\n\u003e befuddled by those who can't even allow a user config switch to be set.\n\nEssentially, if we make a potentially very harmful option easy to\nenable for users, we are putting them at risk, so yes, this is about\nprotecting users of the base Bitcoin Core implementation. Users have,\nhopefully, come to appreciate this implementation for the peer\nreview-based strict development process, and making a hasty decision\ndue to time constraints (segwit activation expiration) may have\nundesirable consequences. Opinions among the regular contributors are\nsplit on the matter, which to me is an indication we should be\ncautious and consider all aspects before making a decision on the\nmatter."}