[2017-03-25]Bitfury Mines a Block Signaling UASF Mandatory Segwit Deployment

[TwoTimes]

Recently Bitcoin proponents who support Segregated Witness (Segwit) have been fervently discussing BIP 148, a User-Activated Soft Fork (UASF). On March 24 the mining operation Bitfury mined a block with a BIP 148 (=UASF-Segwit) tag, signaling the organization’s support for the proposal.

On March 24, Bitcoin and blockchain infrastructure provider Bitfury mined a block containing a UASF Segwit tag, showing support for the BIP 148 proposal. Block 458793 and a couple of other blocks recorded by the blockchain included the UASF mandatory deployment of the Segwit tag.

Read More Here: https://news.bitcoin.com/bitfury-mines-block-signaling-uasf-segwit/

[Carlton Banks]

....and adding a string intimating "Let's have BIP148, eh chaps!"

does, uh, what? Exactly?


BIP148 isn't signalled for by miners, or users. It just happens on November 15th, end of story.


So why are Bitfury trying to act like what string they add to the arbitrary data in their blocks makes 1 flea of a difference to the Bitcoin Honey Badger? They could do nothing, or write "Boooo BIP148, BOOOOO" and the effect would be the same



It's like the bit in V for Vendetta when the Chancellor says:

"I WANT EVERYBODY TO REMEMBER, WHY THEY NEED US"

[friend666]

Firstly I don’t understand why we cannot have both, remove the 1mb limit and then activate segwit (although I think more thorough SW testing is still needed) but a UASF is just BS, it is not a UASF it is a DASF or MASF, as I am a user and there is no way my opinion or any other users opinions are being counted, it will just be developers and miners, so calling it a UASF is political BS, trying to make out actual “users” are signalling this when in fact it is only miners and developers

[Carlton Banks]

There might be sufficient numbers of users, developers and miners who don't want Bitcoin with Segwit, who prefer the status quo. You can choose to use that fork if it happens, or you could use both quite easily too (you'd own coins on both forks).

I don't accept that Segwit needs more testing though. Just saying "it needs more testing" isn't very convincing, eithre you have an actual reason, or you don't.

Segwit's been acitvated on Bitcoin testnet for a very long time now, something like 1 year. Lightning is already being tested out on Bitcoin Testnet as a result of that. If professional software engineers running specific tests, that include the more sophisticated use-case for Segwit such as Lightning, cannot convince you, it's difficult to imagine what could.


I agree with 1 point, BIP148 isn't quite what one would think of calling User Activated.