|
Title: UASF forced miners? Post by: jubalix on July 21, 2017, 04:03:20 AM If I understand correctly the threat of UASF force the reluctant miners to fall in line ..... any comments of this view, as to is this correct, and to what extent is it correct?
Title: Re: UASF forced miners? Post by: jonald_fyookball on July 21, 2017, 04:10:50 AM a lot of elements... UASF, then DCG's SW2x, then Bitmain's UAHF... so a lot of things falling together, still nothing is 100% sure.
Title: Re: UASF forced miners? Post by: CryptosapienZA on July 21, 2017, 06:18:21 AM I don't think UASF forced miners. Who we should thank is whoever came up with Segwit 2X. That way, everybody got what they wanted. Core developers need to understand that these bullying tactics won't work, going forward. We all want Bitcoin to win in the end.
Title: Re: UASF forced miners? Post by: shaggy404 on July 21, 2017, 06:26:26 AM If I understand correctly the threat of UASF force the reluctant miners to fall in line ..... any comments of this view, as to is this correct, and to what extent is it correct? I hope this is true, because it puts the power into the hands of nodes, instead of letting the miners do whatever they want. Title: Re: UASF forced miners? Post by: crazyivan on July 21, 2017, 06:55:12 AM We do not own BTC network, we re simply user since we use its services to transfer our coins. In exchange we pay the fee.
There needs to be a decision making solution, I dont see this as a big issue. Without it, BTC would be overcome by lots of other coins which have clear management and re much more flexible. What did you expect? That you and I, for example, would have a saying in BTC development? Why? What did we do to be asked about it? Title: Re: UASF forced miners? Post by: pitiflin on July 21, 2017, 07:03:52 AM If I understand correctly the threat of UASF force the reluctant miners to fall in line ..... any comments of this view, as to is this correct, and to what extent is it correct? I guess that Bitcoin development team created UASF for the following purpose quoted from an article:-Bitcoin's development team, which supports SegWit, has released a new version of the software that enforces the new SegWit rules after 95% of miners show for it as well. When a miner mines a block he can signal his support for SegWit, and when enough miners do so the soft fork becomes valid. Unfortunately, Not enough miners have signaled for SegWit support, so the protocol does not change. Some of SegWit’s eager supporters decided to take action despite the miners signaling and developed a procedure called UASF, or User Activated Soft Fork.. The most widely known version of UASF is called BIP148. It’s a protocol change saying that beginning on August 1st, blocks that do not signal for SegWit are invalid. This change was not merged into the bitcoin core reference client code, but only to an alternative version of it for users that explicitly support a UASF. The idea is to force miners to signal for SegWit support. This is due to the fact that miners would want their blocks to be accepted by nodes that enforce UASF. When miners start signaling support for SegWit, all of the nodes will start enforcing it, even if they don’t explicitly support UASF. The remaining part of the article can be read here:- https://99bitcoins.com/segwit2x-uasf-and-the-upcoming-fork-guidelines-heres-what-you-need-to-know/?utm_source=99Bitcoins+blog+updates&utm_campaign=051c564be1-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_07_20&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ca691db33c-051c564be1-121983013 Title: Re: UASF forced miners? Post by: xbiv2 on July 21, 2017, 07:08:24 AM "Soft fork" imposible, why? Read my signature.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2018878.msg20119234#msg20119234 Title: Re: UASF forced miners? Post by: hatshepsut93 on July 21, 2017, 07:10:12 AM What did you expect? That you and I, for example, would have a saying in BTC development? Why? What did we do to be asked about it? Our word, as users, is actually the strongest one among all parts of Bitcoin network, because we determine the price of Bitcoin. If we won't like the direction it goes to, we can dump it and make mining unprofitable. Or we can buy more Bitcoin and boost the price, if we like new developments (like current surge caused by BIP 91 lock in). If you think that we should shut up and use whatever we have, than the fees would skyrocket again and we'll have to pay $20 for transaction if it has to be confirmed fast. So, when you are paying money for something, you always have a right to demand better quality or refuse to use those services. |