Author: Anthony Towns 2020-01-11 14:42:07
Published on: 2020-01-11T14:42:07+00:00
Bitcoin developer Matt Corallo has proposed a new activation strategy for Bitcoin consensus changes that would be decentralized and technical. The proposal includes a standard BIP 9 deployment with a one-year time horizon for activation with 95% miner readiness, followed by a six-month quieting period during which the community can analyze and discuss the reasons for no activation. Additionally, a simple command-line/bitcoin.conf parameter would enable users to opt into a BIP 8 deployment with a 24-month time-horizon for flag-day activation. Corallo hopes that investors, industry, and people in general work out priorities for what's valuable to work on, while developers work on proposals that make (some subset of) bitcoin users better off, and to not make anyone worse off. Once development is complete, an activation strategy needs to be about ensuring that the Bitcoin network stays in consensus rather than checking popularity or voting.The author of the post discusses a proposal for activation of soft forks in Bitcoin, known as BIP-8. The proposal aims to make the process of activating soft forks more efficient and reduce the need for contentious hard forks. Under BIP-8, nodes would automatically activate a soft fork after a specified time if a sufficient number of blocks signal support for the upgrade. Nodes that do not upgrade would receive warnings if the flag day date is seen. The author also suggests that users should be able to actively resist unwanted changes without having to signal. They argue that this approach could result in a "clean" split if different groups of users want different things. The author acknowledges that there are risks associated with these proposals. For example, a small but skilled group could get a consensus change through even if the vast majority doesn't think it's a priority. However, they argue that these are technical challenges that can be resolved with skill and patience, whoever you might be. The post includes a timeline of the blocksize debate that took place between 2015 and 2017. The author notes that this timeline is not a good example of how things should work and highlights mistakes such as rushed decision-making, attempts to activate forks without resolving technical problems and too much emphasis on numbers rather than technical merits. The author believes that Matt's proposed approach has a good chance of fixing many of these problems while still leaving flexibility to deal with new issues that may arise. Overall, the author supports the BIP-8 proposal and encourages users to consider how they can resist unwanted changes effectively. They believe that this approach could lead to a more decentralized and constructive Bitcoin community.
Updated on: 2023-05-20T21:31:46.015243+00:00