On the regularity of soft forks [combined summary]

• On the regularity of soft forks Billy Tetrud 2022-01-19 02:26:12+00:00
• On the regularity of soft forks Prayank 2022-01-18 17:22:05+00:00
• On the regularity of soft forks Billy Tetrud 2022-01-18 16:00:06+00:00
• On the regularity of soft forks vjudeu at gazeta.pl 2022-01-01 15:45:11+00:00
• On the regularity of soft forks Keagan McClelland 2021-12-31 03:10:48+00:00
• On the regularity of soft forks Michael Folkson 2021-10-16 11:02:08+00:00
• On the regularity of soft forks micaroni at gmail.com 2021-10-15 00:43:40+00:00
• On the regularity of soft forks Anthony Towns 2021-10-14 23:52:07+00:00
• On the regularity of soft forks Jorge Timón 2021-10-12 19:04:02+00:00
• On the regularity of soft forks ZmnSCPxj 2021-10-11 19:53:39+00:00
• On the regularity of soft forks Jeremy 2021-10-11 19:12:58+00:00
• On the regularity of soft forks Prayank 2021-10-11 16:03:16+00:00
• On the regularity of soft forks Michael Folkson 2021-10-11 12:24:10+00:00

Published on: 2022-01-19T02:26:12+00:00

Summary:

Miner signaling is a tool used to indicate readiness for a soft fork, but it should not be seen as a form of voting or expressing support for the fork. This distinction is crucial in order to avoid confusion and misinterpretation by users. The signaling process for taproot, for example, caused confusion among different communities as many believed that miners were actually voting for taproot. To address this issue, there needs to be sufficient community consensus before enabling miner signaling.Prayank, the author of the article, acknowledges that despite sharing a link to clarify the matter, there are still people who hold the misconception that miners vote during signaling. This confusion is further fueled by the differing opinions of developers on MASF (Miner Activated Soft Fork) versus UASF (User Activated Soft Fork). Finding a solution to this problem is a concern for Prayank.The author argues against frequent soft forks with only a single or minimal set of features, advocating instead for infrequent soft forks that include batches of features. The primary focus should be on ensuring the robustness, security, and resistance to harmful or suboptimal changes within the system. Soft fork code should not be merged into a Bitcoin implementation until there is sufficient community consensus on the entirety of that soft fork.In situations where there is no overwhelming community consensus on the activation method, activation parameters, and what to do if the initial attempt fails, the activation of soft forks carries additional risks. These risks include the potential for bugs, consensus divergences, and flawed implementations of soft fork features. Therefore, infrequent soft forks with batches of features are favored over frequent soft forks with only a single feature.Overall, the article emphasizes the need for clear communication and understanding regarding miner signaling, as well as the importance of community consensus in the implementation of soft forks. It also highlights the benefits of infrequent soft forks with multiple features in order to prioritize the security and stability of the Bitcoin system.

Updated on: 2023-08-02T04:54:30.049777+00:00