rich1.0npub1e7vdq905zr4xjr5nxuz58l9jcvffxq728ysl6m2xxgr024mjy5vq4fg307https://nostr.ae/npub1e7vdq905zr4xjr5nxuz58l9jcvffxq728ysl6m2xxgr024mjy5vq4fg307njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2017-05-23 📝 Original message:On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Correct me if I am wrong, but currently core developers are arguing over > whether or not to allow an optional configuration switch which defaults off > but signals and enforces BIP148 when used. Who are we protecting users from, > themselves? Are you protecting core? from what? I am somewhat genuinely > befuddled by those who can't even allow a user config switch to be set. Essentially, if we make a potentially very harmful option easy to enable for users, we are putting them at risk, so yes, this is about protecting users of the base Bitcoin Core implementation. Users have, hopefully, come to appreciate this implementation for the peer review-based strict development process, and making a hasty decision due to time constraints (segwit activation expiration) may have undesirable consequences. Opinions among the regular contributors are split on the matter, which to me is an indication we should be cautious and consider all aspects before making a decision on the matter.