is uacomment valid to signal for UASF?

[cellard]

I dont feel comfortable running code that is not signed by the Core developers, as some others pointed out.

UAcomment, seems like a great idea, to signal for something, without potentially compromising your machine with faulty code.

Will Core devs include native support for UASF-BIP148 if uacomment gets massive support? what is the treshhold for this? (how many % of nodes signaling for UASF either via uacomment or actual shaolinfry's client)

[1715218129]

1715218129

[1715218129]

1715218129

[1715218129]

1715218129

[achow101]

There is no signalling with UASF. You can show your support by setting the uacomment, but it does nothing with regards to actually activating segwit.

[cellard]

There is no signalling with UASF. You can show your support by setting the uacomment, but it does nothing with regards to actually activating segwit.

But my questions remain unaswered.

Is there a certain threshold where Core devs will add native UASF support? when is enough support "enough"?

Is uacomment same as running the UASF client?

[achow101]

But my questions remain unaswered.

Is there a certain threshold where Core devs will add native UASF support? when is enough support "enough"?

No. Core does not just implement something because some arbitrary and easily faked metric (node count is highly unreliable due to the easiness of making thousands of "nodes") shows that "enough" people support a proposal. Many Core devs think that UASF is unsafe anyways, so unless the proposal significantly changes, it probably won't be implemented into Core. There is currently no indication or talk about implementing UASF into Core.

Is uacomment same as running the UASF client?

No. The UASF client will enforce segwit signalling after August 1st. That behavior is not present in Core.

[Yogafan00000]

Core does not just implement something because some arbitrary and easily faked metric (node count is highly unreliable due to the easiness of making thousands of "nodes") shows that "enough" people support a proposal. Many Core devs think that UASF is unsafe anyways, so unless the proposal significantly changes, it probably won't be implemented into Core. There is currently no indication or talk about implementing UASF into Core.

Is it even a possibility for UASF to force segwit activation without devs or miners, and then we can all switch back to core code after activation?

This seems craziness to me, but I'm not happy with the current Jihan monopoly on progress.

[achow101]

Is it even a possibility for UASF to force segwit activation without devs or miners, and then we can all switch back to core code after activation?

Yes, you can do that. UASF only requires that all blocks support segwit after August 1st and that will cause segwit to activate in Core so long as UASF does not cause a chain split. The UASF client does not change how segwit is activated in regards to BIP 9 signalling.

[piotr_n]

But my questions remain unaswered.

Is there a certain threshold where Core devs will add native UASF support? when is enough support "enough"?

No. Core does not just implement something because some arbitrary and easily faked metric (node count is highly unreliable due to the easiness of making thousands of "nodes") shows that "enough" people support a proposal. Many Core devs think that UASF is unsafe anyways, so unless the proposal significantly changes, it probably won't be implemented into Core. There is currently no indication or talk about implementing UASF into Core.

Wow.

Why don't you just publish it on reddit, so all these crazy kids spreading the panic and undermining the value of bitcoin could shut up once and for all?

[achain]

Nope, it's just a comment that one supports it. Just like a T-shirt.