|
Title: [2017-3-16] Badly Activated Soft Fork? Post by: reddibrek on March 16, 2017, 07:22:11 PM "As concern continues to grow in the community, some radical ideas about how to enforce the adoption of Segwit below the threshold of 95% are being proposed by Core supporters. The latest idea to be put forward is that of a 'User Activated Soft Fork'."
https://www.reddheads.com/en/basf-badly-activated-soft-fork/ Title: Re: [2017-3-16] Badly Activated Soft Fork? Post by: notthematrix on March 16, 2017, 09:54:05 PM Sorry BU is toast they know it is over....
dont try to divert from that , I don't care about the politics I care about the code. there is no excuse code bug like this https://twitter.com/TuurDemeester/status/842062133097574403 (https://twitter.com/TuurDemeester/status/842062133097574403) in a > 7.000.000.000 project! Title: Re: [2017-3-16] Badly Activated Soft Fork? Post by: TraderTimm on March 17, 2017, 02:33:27 PM I'm tired of coin-rags with silly taglines using click-bait titles.
I don't want to read your fucking article, because you seem to write like a simpleton that does HuffPo content or runs a Yahoo message board. User activated forks is one proposed method to break a deadlock, and it isn't even implemented - its in a theoretical form only, being debated now. Title: Re: [2017-3-16] Badly Activated Soft Fork? Post by: d5000 on March 17, 2017, 09:53:58 PM I sympathize with the UASF idea, because it gives back the decision power about soft forks to users. However, as also the article states, it has its own drawbacks and dangers.
I have thought about another variant: - Implement a Proof of Stake voting system. - Recognize that miners can effectively "vote" in BIP9 with the "ready" signal. - Combine both methods to vote on soft forks (e.g. 75% PoS + 75% miners, the number is not important). |