Author: Gregory Maxwell 2017-04-14 07:56:31
Published on: 2017-04-14T07:56:31+00:00
The author of this piece explains that they support segwit because it was designed to increase the security and stability of Bitcoin. However, they do not support the BIP148 UASF proposal because it does not meet the same engineering standards as segwit or best practices in protocol development. The primary flaw with BIP148 is that it forces the activation of existing (non-UASF segwit) nodes, which almost guarantees minor disruption. Segwit was engineered so that older unmodified miners could continue operating completely without interruption after activation. Although the author respects the motivation behind the BIP148 proposal, they believe it is not up to the normal standards of the Bitcoin community. They argue that the fastest support should not be the goal and that using the least disruptive mechanisms available is important. The author believes that users should not be at the mercy of any one part of the ecosystem, including developers, exchanges, chat forums, or mining hardware makers. While the author does not oppose the general concept of a UASF, they generally believe that a soft-fork of any kind does not need to risk disruption of mining. Some other UASF proposals have been put forward that avoid forced disruption by defining a new witness bit and allowing non-upgraded-to-uasf miners and nodes to continue as non-upgraded. These proposals may be slower to deploy, but the author believes they are vastly superior. The author urges patience when it comes to Bitcoin, stating that it is a system that should last for all ages and power mankind for a long time. The reputation earned for stability and integrity will mean everything, and short cuts should not be taken. Overall, the author believes that segwit is a good improvement and should be respected enough to wait for activation in the best way possible.
Updated on: 2023-05-20T01:57:11.517359+00:00