[2017-3-16] Badly Activated Soft Fork?

[reddibrek]

"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/

[1715250930]

1715250930

[1715250930]

1715250930

[1715250930]

1715250930

[notthematrix]

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
 in a > 7.000.000.000 project!

[TraderTimm]

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.

[d5000]

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).