Can you explain how URSF works? I’ve looked into it, but it seems like the people discussing it don’t really understand how it works.
If there is a version of Bitcoin Core that doesn’t have TapRoot, but it has CTV, how would this not be a hard fork?
Discussion
A URSF simply works by rejecting blocks signaling for the contentious feature. It is a deliberate withholding of information from the rest of the network, meaning miners will have an easier time getting their expensively-made block propagated to the network by NOT signaling fpr DC.
URSF is a very new concept, so please excuse my ignorance of it. Do you know what individuals who run nodes would need to do, and what percentage of the nodes would need to do it?
It would be similar to UASF, which was wildly popular among node runners duringhe blocksize war . An alternative source branch would be forked from core, binaries would be made available, which each node runner would have to install, which sounds complicated, but node-in-a-box distros (like Raspiblitz or Start9) would probably provide an easy install menu item.
What percentage of node runners were necessaey would really depend on how committed the miners are to going to war.
Okay, this seems complicated. In the blocksize war, a majority of nodes didn’t have to do anything because they were battling a hard fork.
Let’s say 20% of node runners install these binaries, 5% install the drivechain upgrade, and 75% do nothing. Would that signal to the miners that 80% support the new soft fork?
I think there are a lot of factors at play here that make it difficult (for me at least) to say this is a straight equation. Of course the number of participants is important. But what is the threshold and time window for activation? Are the miners actually ready to produce DC-compatible blocks (signaling is not strictly readiness), and also what is their tolerance for risk of producing a block that might get beat out by a non-DC signaling block (the URSF can even block DC-signaling blocks before DC activation)? Miners have budgets and profit margins. Are they ready to assume this risk over a protracted, contentious battle? Can pools that signal for DC keep their participants from jumping to another pool that doesn't?
idk what he's talking about, readiness IS the signal.
If you're upgraded, you can certainly flag. But how do you know they aren't just running software that signals as a bluff? There is no guarantee. It is not a vote.
Yeah it all seems messy.
Okay, let’s say you have the ability to stop drivechain with a another soft fork, and you have to choose:
1. Don’t upgrade, and your node is not effected whatsoever
2. Upgrade to drivechain to either use it, or as a tool to have available just in case
3. Install the blocking soft fork so that nobody else can use drivechain
Why would someone choose 3 over the other options?
Node runners are usually running a node, because they have made a conscious decision to be a participant in the network. There is no payoff beyond validating your own copy of the blockchain, broadcasting your own transactions, and private querying of the mempool and blockchain.
So you have to wonder what *kind* of people would do that, and the broad majority of those are pretty much ideological participants.
And your asking why ideological participants would go to the effort of #3, when they've already gone to all the other effort of running a node? Tell me you weren't around for UASF without telling me yOu weren't around for UASF.
Sorry, I think my question wasn’t very clear. I mean why, ideologically, would someone actively forbid others from using drivechain?
Wen mute keywords in nostr:npub18m76awca3y37hkvuneavuw6pjj4525fw90necxmadrvjg0sdy6qsngq955?
Perhaps, because they are vested in the long-term stability of Bitcoin, they will have a level of unease with the under-scrutinized added complexity that drivechains adds to the game theory. You would have to poll all the URSF node runners to know exactly why.
Maybe it's simply "fuck that bcasher and his nerd project"
if 75% do nothing, that's 75% that won't propagate blocks with the new garbage in them.
do you have dyslexia?
it sounds like bullshit to me. this is not how bitcoin works. user rejected. like if you don't actively deny it it is gonna pass.
excuse me if i sound stupid but if i don't upgrade to use the code how is that not rejecting it?
URSF was first proposed in 2022 as a counter to CTV. Here is Sjors Provoost and Aaron vonWirdum explaining it.
==========
Bitcoin Explained - The Technical Side of Bitcoin: Episode 57: User Rejected Soft Forks (URSFs)
Episode webpage: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/bitcoin-explained/episodes/Episode-57-User-Rejected-Soft-Forks-URSFs-e1r577v