Replying to Avatar Aaron van Wirdum

As I’ve said before…

Those that wish to block OP_RETURNs and whatever else they see as spam should deploy a UASF to render it invalid.

Those that consider this a form of (or path to) censorship and undesirable should deploy a URSF (user rejected soft fork) to counter it.

Exchanges can offer fork futures long before the actual split happens, gauging market sentiment and informing miners where to direct their hash power at fork point. (Hopefully we’ll see a winner-takes-most dynamic and minimal disruption for non-upgraded nodes, i.e. no large re-orgs.)
f5
Laukess 2mo ago 💬 1

I can't decide if I like hard-forks more. Seem like a cleaner solution. You want a braking change, or can't get a soft-fork through, make a fork, it either gains adoption and becomes bitcoin, or it dies a shitcoin.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Aaron van Wirdum 2mo ago 💬 1

Also fine (arguably better even, indeed), but no real upside from the filterers’ perspective, so unlikely they’ll go that route imho.

f5
Laukess 2mo ago

True. Maybe it was because I had only been in bitcoin about a year at the time, but when the big blockers broke off from bitcoin, the signal-to-noise ratio went up a lot. But your right, probably not what you want if you want to hard-fork and you know you are the minority.

I wonder if we'll see more hard-forks in the future. It seems like we already have a hard time agreeing to activate soft-forks that are a lot less controversial. Doubt it'll be any easier in the future.