I think the current version of UASF is Not good enough, at least not better than the current version of Hashrate voting.


247 BTC

Bitcoin News Search

1 News - 247 News - 247 Bitcoin - 1 Search


The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making.

These words were written in Bitcoin Paper. So we must consider again and again before we replace it with a new method, even when there is no longer "one-CPU-one-vote".

So, why BU is not "Bitcoin" even if it has 70% hashrate with Bitmain? The reason is, that's hardfork. The "majority decision making" Bitcoin paper talked about was only for "there is only one chain", which means softfork, and one-chain hardfork.

I don't think the current situation (UASFboost & Blocking SegWit) is severe enough to make us use the current UASF version.

I fully appreciate Bitcoin Devs's contribution and effort to make Bitcoin so great, but we shall follow the Bitcoin mechanism unless the situation is severe enough.

If we use sth like UASF in some decision making in the future, it shall be based on the support of at least 51% hashrate. That is, the proof-of-work voting shall be the main method, and node voting shall only be the assistant method. This time, UASF without 51% hashrate is not acceptable, I think.

I know it's hard to get 51% hashrate support, after Bitmain has produced 70% mining rigs for 2.5 years. But it's possible.

The question is, when we shall use UASF without 51% hashrate. There may be some severe situations. But now it's far less severe for us to detach their tails for survival.

Although Jihan Ver are spreading endless lies to attack devs and the community, against the economic majority, blocking innovations.

ps: Anyway, for soft fork, 95% is too high. Anyone knows if Satoshi gave us an explanation why we should use 95%? (For hard fork I think 95% is good)

submitted by /u/webitcoiners
[link] [comments]


247 BTC

Bitcoin News Search

1 News - 247 News - 247 Bitcoin - 1 Search


Leave a Reply