Author: Jorge Timón 2021-06-27 08:47:06
Published on: 2021-06-27T08:47:06+00:00
The recent controversy over upgrade mechanisms for the non-controversial taproot upgrade sparked an idea about solving problems that both sides brought up. A proposal has been created for soft fork upgrades that use trinary version signaling rather than binary signaling. For any particular prospective soft fork upgrade, this allows for three signaling states: actively support the change, actively oppose the change, and not signaling (neither support nor oppose). Using this additional information, we can release non-contentious upgrades much quicker (with a much lower percentage of miners signaling support). For contentious upgrades, miners who oppose the change are incentivized to update their software to a version that can actively signal opposition to the change.On the other hand, Eric Voskuil wrote that there is no collective "we" since users decide the rules, not miners nor developers. Soft fork enforcement is the same act as any other censorship enforcement, and anyone can mine, so everyone gets a say. Mining is trading capital now for more later. If enough people want to do that, they can enforce a soft fork. Otherwise, anyone can start a new coin. However, it's dishonest to imply that one can do this and all others will surely follow. This cannot be known; it's merely a gamble. And it's one that has been shown to not always pay off.
Updated on: 2023-06-14T23:31:06.523219+00:00