Author: Chris Acheson 2017-04-15 07:46:47
Published on: 2017-04-15T07:46:47+00:00
In an email discussion on the bitcoin-dev list, Gregory Maxwell expressed concern that the UASF (User Activated Soft Fork) proposal, which would reject the blocks of passive participants, has design limitations and asked for clarification. A reply from Eric Lombrozo argued that orphaning non-signalling blocks on the flag date is safer than simply considering the fork active on the flag date. Under the orphaning approach, miners know they need to upgrade by the flag date in order to get paid, whereas with the non-orphaning approach, a chain split won't occur until someone crafts a malicious block. Lombrozo said this less predictable approach would be "clumsy, uncoordinated, and likely panicked." He acknowledged that the orphaning approach could be disruptive to miners but argued users should be prioritized over miners.Lombrozo said he had scrutinized the strategy of BIP148 and initially opposed it, but after Bitfury showed their support, and especially after the Asicboost revelation, he thinks it could succeed. If the necessary support can't be obtained in time, Lombrozo said the effort can be abandoned and options reassessed.
Updated on: 2023-06-12T00:10:04.927968+00:00