*sigh*
Here we go again.
UASF was successfully used to activate P2SH soft fork (BIP16). Even Satoshi used UASF.
Again, a complete failure on your part to comprehend the difference between a conventional softfork and a
user activated softfork. Miners supported BIP16 and there was no need to attempt to force miners to follow the economic activity. That was a conventionally activated softfork achieved with consensus, not some nodes vs miners "line-in-the-sand" type bullshit where nodes deliberately try to fork miners off the network unless they agree. That has never happened in the history of Bitcoin. There has only ever been one attempted UASF and it just got REKT. As such no user activated softforks have ever occurred.
BIP16 was indeed a soft fork.
It. Was. Not. User. Activated.
Learn the difference.
Here's
bitcoin.org to help you out:
User Activated Soft Fork, UASF
Definition
A Soft Fork activated by flag day or node enforcement instead of miner signalling.
Synonyms
User-activated soft fork
UASF
Not To Be Confused With
Miner Activated Soft Fork (a soft fork activated through miner signalling)
Fork (a regular fork where all nodes follow the same consensus rules, so the fork is resolved once one chain has more proof of work than another)
Hard fork (a permanent divergence in the block chain caused by non-upgraded nodes not following new consensus rules)
Soft fork (a temporary divergence in the block chain caused by non-upgraded nodes not following new consensus rules)To which I'm sure your reply will be something along the lines of "
But it says right there soft forks are temporary, duh", but what you fail to realise is that a user activated softfork can still
cause a hardfork if the miners refuse to follow. The "softfork" part of UASF is really a misnomer in that regard. Its very design is to force either a split or a concession. There is no middleground.
And tell us one more time how UASF couldn't possibly result in two chains despite the fact that the clue is in the damn name. That shit's priceless.
Indeed, the clue is in the damn name: SOFT FORK.
Indeed: FORK. As in TWO CHAINS. Soft or hard doesn't make a difference when it's user activated. In the context of UASF, Fork means two fucking chains you damned imbecile. A reorg
might eventually wipe out one of the chains, but a reorg was never guaranteed had UASF not been REKT. The second chain
might die off and be a complete non-event if it doesn't have adequate support, but again, that was never guaranteed had UASF not been REKT. Take particular note of the emphasis on "
might". To spell it out for you, if those mights don't happen, the result is a hardfork and a permanent split. If one group of miners had continued building on a minority UASF chain and another group of miners had continued building on a longer legacy chain, that adds up to two chains and a permanent split. Thankfully that situation has been avoided (because UASF got REKT).
Funnily enough, that's why
bitcoin.org had to put a warning up about UASF (which you in your infinite stupidity
assumed was referring to "JarzikCoins"). There is clearly and undeniably a scenario in which UASF could have resulted in a permanent split and two chains. If you are too dense to understand how that could have potentially played out, even after I've made it abundantly clear in the above paragraph, then I'm afraid I can't help you any further. It's plain as day to everyone else with more than two brain cells to rub together, though.
In a dispute there are 2 sides: one is wrong and one is right. Big blockers are wrong.
Yet strangely, many of them appear to have a firmer grasp on both reality and the more technical aspects of Bitcoin than you do. I doubt the other smallblockers appreciate you undermining their arguments by talking complete bollocks all the time, so you might want to work on that. At least try to
look like you know what you're talking about before spouting off. You're letting the side down.
Or, better yet, (and more than a little off topic) you could stop perpetuating the whole bigblocker vs smallblocker ignorant tribal sect crap and just use some
common sense when it comes to the issue of blocksize.
For this last part, I'm ranting to the world in general now. Just about everyone out there still seems to be of the impression the blocksize has to be a whole number, but not a single person has ever given even the slightest attempt at justification for why that should be. Apparently that's too much to ask. Why the everloving shit does it have to be 1MB vs 2MB? What's wrong with 1.01MB and 1.02MB? Why is that so inconceivable? We're using a currency with
eight decimal places, FFS. Is it really beyond the realm of comprehension to add two decimal places to the blocksize and work in smaller increments? We could avoid so much bigblocker vs smallblocker idiocy with such a simple change in scope. There's clearly no need to double the blocksize when smaller and more frequent adjustments would suffice.
