Nostr Web Client

The whole concept (as I originally designed it) was for an emergency/reactive UASF. I'm not sure it makes sense any other way. For a non-eventful softfork, you'd want to start it 1-1.5 years into the future. And then with a 1 year expiry still?

nonymous 1mo ago

Why not separating both? 1.- Reactive/emergency UASF and 2.- UASF planned 1y ahead but permanent, not temporary.

I think Emergency UASF will have way less consensus around it and when/if the offending block happens IMO it will generate a split chain. The chain with the offending block will be considered bitcoin by most people (including miners, exchanges and businesses)

Planned UASF can have way more consensus around it. I think we could limit OP_Return to 80 in CR and also make inscriptions way more expensive. Maybe we could just remove the segwit discount, or at least, change the 4x to 2x (with the additional benefit of having blocks smaller)

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Luke Dashjr 1mo ago 💬 1

I do not support the rules in BIP444 on a permanent basis.

Kajoozie Maflingo 1mo ago 💬 1

so, what, we'd need to do another soft fork later to revert them?

Luke Dashjr 1mo ago 💬 1

Reverting a softfork without an upfront expiry is a hardfork

flaming_hodl 1mo ago

If it expires, an attacker knows the block to attack. I don't see how it fixes the problem, just delays it.