What is UASF?

[BlackJacky]

Guys, could somebody please explain me high-level what this "User Activated Soft Fork" is?

Highly appreciate an answer Thx

[iamnotback]

What is UASF?

Uncertain Anonymous Soft Fork.

UASF is very dangerous and subject to manipulation.

How do you know who will sell which fork for sure?

...

I think it makes the value of the coin collapse forever, because investors can't trust a democracy to make sane decisions.

UASF either means the whales are colluding in which case we can never trust that coin ever again, or it will fail in chaos. Both of which are very bad.

Immutability is the only reason we trust to keep our money in a token. If whales control the thing, we might as well put our money in a private bank without any regulation.

HFs are centralized control. Democracy is not decentralization.

But if all our options have the same flaws, then the multiple choices theory is also centralization.

See if humans can UASF on one blockchain or SF, then they will do it on all, because humans are incapable of resisting their urge to fuck themselves with democracy.

So if Bitcoin fails immutability, then PoW is toasted and the entire blockchain ecosystem might collapse, because alternatives such as PoS are centralized and controllable by whales because there is nothing-at-stake to attack it.

Jihan Wu is protecting us from ourselves.

[unamis76]

You can read about it here.

[BlackJacky]

You can read about it here.

yes, I have read this but I still don't get it...what is this???

[iamnotback]

You can read about it here.

yes, I have read this but I still don't get it...what is this???

https://bitflyer.jp/en/glossary/uasf

It is nonsense. Nodes are not hashrate. Can be defeated with a Sybil attack.

If the economic majority sells the original fork and buys the new fork, then it could work, but there is no way to be sure who will sell and buy which fork.

[unamis76]

yes, I have read this but I still don't get it...what is this???

Not sure of a better way to describe it than what's already in the abstract

This document specifies a BIP16 like soft fork flag day activation of the segregated witness BIP9 deployment known as "segwit".

It's basically a SegWit enforcement. If it's not activated on a certain date, this would activate it.

[jonald_fyookball]

I thought this tweet was insightful:



In own my (biased) viewpoint, its Core trying to intimidate/play chicken with the miners.
They hope to show evidence of community support to influence the miners to signal
for it.  Now lets sit back and see if it works.    If it does not, I doubt they will risk
activating it.. they would simply be forking themselves off into a minority chain.

[FlightyPouch]

You can read about it here.

yes, I have read this but I still don't get it...what is this???

https://bitflyer.jp/en/glossary/uasf

It is nonsense. Nodes are not hashrate. Can be defeated with a Sybil attack.

If the economic majority sells the original fork and buys the new fork, then it could work, but there is no way to be sure who will sell and buy which fork.

I think you can understand it here right now,  but why are they doing these UASF thing, Miners are imporrtant to SegWit, and with small miners, there will be lesser bitcoin to be mined. Are they trying to make miners fear them or like a incentive that they are not afraid of these miners? What is happening.

[iamnotback]

Check my logic please...

UASF does not turn Bitcoin or Litecoin into a democracy. A soft fork is different from a hard fork, UAHF would effectively turn Bitcoin into a democracy and I agree that would be bad. But soft forks are backwards compatible so people who do not want to upgrade are free to choose not to do so. You also need a large majority support to do a soft fork, but that is clearly the case when you look at https://coin.dance/poli. Jihan is not going to wage war against the users of the coin he wants to sell them, and if he does he is cutting into his own fingers. We'll see, either we get Segwit UASF and everyone including miners are happy and will profit. Or miners will refuse UASF and their profits will vanish together with the value of the coin. Let's see how tough Jihan really is.

(On Bitcoin at least) the majority of the mining hashrate will refuse to mine on blocks that chain on any SegWit enabled blocks. Thus you're soft fork will become a hard fork, else the users will accept defeat. If the users insist then they will be on fork with a minority of the hashrate. The smart money like myself (and especially whales) will sell coins on that illegal (democracy) fork and spend the money to buy more tokens on the legal (immutable) fork. Also the miners from majority fork can do difficulty attacks on the minority fork or even completely shut down all transactions on the minority fork.

UASF is nonsense. Hashrate and people buying and selling the forks is all that matters. Jihan doesn't give a fuck about noisy retards, and would love to take their money from them with the help all those coin holders and whales who understand that democracy would destroy blockchains.

Also soft forks turn into hard forks if there is contention. That is why soft forks don't activate without 75 - 95% hashrate support. The authors of UASF are retarded.

Lowering the activation threshold for soft fork of SegWit on Litecoin to say ~60% which is effectively what UASF would be, is very risky. Jihan may be hiding hashrate that can use to create a HF with (he might even be signaling SegWit secretly with some of his hardware in order to lure the UASF into overconfidence).

[zimmah]

It's a sad attempt to bypass nakamoto consensus and trying to justify their stranglehold on the bitcoin network.   

[iamnotback]

@btcbug, I realized another factor on ETH in addition to those I stated in my prior post:

But I think you are wrong regarding UASF. What is currently going on is a hostage situation where 1 man is holding back an entire network. Two, actually.
You say "immutability", I say "his own benefit". Who knows what it will be next, and before you know it, he's in bed with certain entities.

But while he can block us from activating SegWit, he can't HF by himself to do something naughty, because the other miners will turn against him and he apparently doesn't control 51% by himself. He forced alliances on this SegWit issue, but I don't think he could for naught activities.

Btw, I agree that having one manufacturer that makes such a large percentage of the ASICs is not good. But that is PoW. I actually am trying to develop a replacement for PoW.

If you don't want PoW, then go to PoS coin instead. ETH was able to take control because Vitalik is going to fork to a POShit eventually anyway, so there is no investment in ASICs.

UASF is, currently, the best way to put him and other mining entities back in their places and set a precedent, as a warning to anyone that attempts to attack the network. And, strictly from a speculative pov, people seem more than happy to put their money where their mouth is wrt this UASF event, opposite of your claim that people don't want to store value on a democratic chain.

You try and you will lose your money. I warned you. The big money will not tolerate a non-hashrate driven MOB. If they could tolerate it, they would already have invested in PoShit tokens.

You say you want PoW then you say your don't want PoW. Make up your mind.

@btcbug, more explanation of my prior comment about ETH...

how are the investment is ASCIs related to this?  
Are you making things up again      


(ASCIs, Except if you have proof of course, Is only an incentive to REMAIN and STICK to the chain where your ASCIs Belong, what  2+2 is equal to, big boy?)

I love how you insult me while asking me to explain what you don't know.  

"I am ignorant and you are an asshurl, but tell me what I don't know before you fuck off". Lol. Very persuasive.

Ahem. Ummmm. (Grabs chalkboard and prepares to writes some BIG LETTERS like ABCs for ADHD children)

Uhhh, can SHA256 ASICs on the scale owned by Bitmain be profitably repurposed to any other coin? No. Can GPUs be profitably repurposed from ETH/ETC to another coin or activity? Yes.

Can the supply of hashrate on Bitcoin be suddenly increased by 50% by renting hashrate? No, supply of ASICs is constrained. Can the supply of hashrate on ETH/ETC be suddenly increased by 50% by renting hashrate? Yes, GPUs are not constrained and GPUs from other coins can be incentivized to switch.

Miners on ETH/ETC have no vested interest. Vitalik will be kicking them out someday anyway. They can repurposed to the most profitable coin any time. So miners on ETH/ETC have no vested interest to enforce immutability. On Bitcoin they have huge vested interest to prevent retards from turning Bitcoin into a political clusterfuck or a BDFL such as Vitalik.

More saliently, Ethereum is a power-vacuum because miners have no vested interest. Thus Ethereum can only exist with a BDFL. This is why ETC was able to fork off.

Stop insulting me and respect the knowledge of those who are smarter and more widely studied than you are. Feel free to reason with me, but stop acting like childish nincompoops.

[iamnotback]

Also soft forks turn into hard forks if there is contention. That is why soft forks don't activate without 75 - 95% hashrate support. The authors of UASF are retarded.

Lowering the activation threshold for soft fork of SegWit on Litecoin to say ~60% which is effectively what UASF would be, is very risky. Jihan may be hiding hashrate that can use to create a HF with (he might even be signaling SegWit secretly with some of his hardware in order to lure the UASF into overconfidence).

You try and you will lose your money. I warned you. The big money will not tolerate a non-hashrate driven MOB. If they could tolerate it, they would already have invested in PoShit tokens.

You say you want PoW then you say your don't want PoW. Make up your mind.

The LTC UASF situation is much different than Bitcoin's. For now, in BTC, there is a stale mate between miners so any attempt, be it UASF, BU HF or whatever is doomed to fail until there is a clear winner.

Litecoin on the other hand already has ~70% of the miners behind SegWit (and others that want it are not signalling yet, like ProHashing), want development built on top of it, the community wants SegWit and economic nodes want SegWit. One person blocking this cannot stand, and he won't be able to do anything about it.

But I wrote before that it is not clear if that 70% really exists. Jihan may be fooling you by signaling some of his hashrate to activate SegWit to lure you into a trap.

If you indeed have 70% or 60%, then you don't need a USAF, just lower the threshold. The reason to not to do that is because it is very risky. UASF helps nothing! Everything depends on hashrate.


I have another new theory for Jihan's motivation. He may want Charlie Lee to be more concrete about SegWit being the final protocol update. The last thing Jihan wants is another set of Core-like developers trying to create trouble. Charlie works for Coinbase (or DCG) and so he might be pressured to put stuff on Litecoin's protocol that favors the vested interests of his employers at the detriment of others.

Charlie needs to have a talk with Jihan asap.

[iamnotback]

Re: USAF Economic Weight

Can anyone check the validity of my assertions so far?

Can BIP148 be cancelled?

Yes. In the event that the economic majority does not support BIP148, users should remove software that enforces BIP148. A flag day activation for SegWit would be the next logical steps and require coordination significant manipulation of the community, most likely towards the end of 2018.

Fixed it for them.  

Well I believe you are correct that a chain split will indeed occur if the longest PoW chain
doesn't support segwit.  The outputs from the new transaction types won't be recognized
by the legacy chain and therefore, any blocks mined with subsequent transactions using
those outputs may not validate.  The 'backwards compatibility' of segwit only means your
wallet won't stop working just because you're not using the new transaction types, or
if you're a minority miner, you can still mine blocks with non segwit transactions,
but the block will always be on top of the longest chain.

The idea behind UASF is to persuade/influence/ miners to fork, but
the problem is that anything except hash power is relatively inexpensive
to spoof.  So, this goes against the philosophy of Bitcoin PoW.

You guys are just regurgitating what you read from me here, here, and here.

But that is good. At least you're learning.

Now you guys need to learn this, this, and this.

You're making some progress but until you lose the itch to destroy yourselves by ganging up as a MOB, then you will continue to destroy yourselves.

The idea behind UASF is to persuade/influence/ miners to fork, but
the problem is that anything except hash power is relatively inexpensive
to spoof.  So, this goes against the philosophy of Bitcoin PoW.

right, but get mostly everyone, bitfinex, stamps, bitpay etc. all supporting USAF, and its not ambiguous and the idea of "spoofing" is a non issue.
its not inconceivable that with a minority hashing power and a minority node count, a UASF is successful and carries with it the BTC brand.

Nonsense. Just a lot more fools who can lose their money. The smart money will sell the USAF minority hashrate fork and buy the majority hashrate fork. Jihan might even temporarily mine on the USAF fork and lie-in-wait, so that the fools sell the legal fork and buy the illegal USAF forkoff, and the smart money will do the opposite. Then Jihan moves his hashrate onto the legal fork and bankrupts all the retards.

Sweet justice in the law of immutable protocol.

Re: The mother of all Hardforks

The mother of all forkoffs, will be the transfer of BTC from all the retards who think Bitcoin is not already perfect as it is, to those who not retards.

The information is available for your edification. LN is coming and it will be good for the BTC price. But LN is never coming to Bitcoin.

You've been warned.

[jonald_fyookball]

 if you want to take credit for my post, go for it.

it doesnt take a genius to realize segwit isnt backwards compatible without miner support.
Its only because of the propaganda that some people think "oh soft fork , its so soft and fluffy"

[iamnotback]

if you want to take credit for my post, go for it.

Except that I wrote about before you did and you posted in my thread where I wrote about it, so obviously you read it from me. But that's okay if you pretend you didn't. The most important outcome is that you learn.

[jonald_fyookball]

if you want to take credit for my post, go for it.

Except that I wrote about before you did and you posted in my thread where I wrote about it, so obviously you read it from me. But that's okay if you pretend you didn't. The most important outcome is that you learn.

lol.

no one cares.

Honestly i tune out most of your stuff because you have extreme views that don't make sense to me and you seem much more concerned with your own thoughts than anything else.  But its cool..we're all here for the lolz.
 

[iamnotback]

if you want to take credit for my post, go for it.

Except that I wrote about before you did and you posted in my thread where I wrote about it, so obviously you read it from me. But that's okay if you pretend you didn't. The most important outcome is that you learn.

lol.

no one cares.

Honestly i tune out most of your stuff because you have extreme views that don't make sense to me and you seem much more concerned with your own thoughts than anything else.  But its cool..we're all here for the lolz.

Lol, you tune out most but then how do you decide which ones to reply to if you don't read them.

Your absorbing via osmosis because you want to tune out. That pretty much summarizes your level of conscious thought.

Yeah no prob bro. Lolz it.

[jonald_fyookball]

by that logic, I can claim I invented Bitcoin Unlimited since I said "why not let the miners decide" before it was "a thing", and Peter R. was reading my thread. 

[LeeMinHoa]

Guys, could somebody please explain me high-level what this "User Activated Soft Fork" is?

Highly appreciate an answer Thx

UASF exists as a Git branch from Bitcoin Core 0.14, where it builds and compiles cleanly. The code has received a quick once-over by one of the Core devs, which found and fixed a logic mistake, but has not received substantial code review or analysis of how the code may interact with the Blockchain should it become active.

[shodiqtercinta]

UASF stands for User Activated Soft Fork. This is the mechanism by which the timing of activation of the software fork occurs on a certain date imposed by a full node, a concept sometimes referred to as the majority of economies.