Published on: 2017-03-12T15:47:28+00:00
The author of BIP9 has proposed an extension to the existing protocol that introduces an additional activation parameter for soft forks. The new parameter, called "activationtime," specifies a minimum median time past of a block at which the deployment should transition to the locked-in state. This allows full nodes to coordinate synchronized activation based on a median past time using the BIP9 state machine.The state transition workflow for this proposal is the same as in BIP9, except when the activation time is greater than zero. In such cases, the workflow will be DEFINED -> STARTED -> PRE_LOCK_IN -> LOCKED_IN -> ACTIVE. The guidelines suggest setting the activation time to some date in the future, which must be less than the BIP9 timeout.A living list of deployment proposals can be found on GitHub, and an optional mandatory signaling function is included in the reference implementation. The discussion on the Bitcoin-dev mailing list revolves around the possibility of a hash-minority attacking a hash-majority in Bitcoin. Some argue that it is impossible for non-mining users to attack miners, while others believe it is possible by refusing to buy their coinbase transaction.The majority of hash rate can choose to continue with old rules or not, and users are free to follow tighter rules than before or reject them. The disagreement can be resolved peacefully through unilateral separation. However, if the majority of users are hostile and reject blocks that miners create, then what the miners bring to the table is also removed. Bitcoin works when the majority of the hashpower and the (economic) majority of users are balanced in power and have their goals aligned. A hash-minority attacking the hash-majority is an attack upon Bitcoin as a whole and opens up the possibility of governments trying to push through changes in the same way.In another discussion on the Bitcoin-dev mailing list, participants debated whether a "hashpower activated soft fork to censor transactions" could be seen as censorship. One member argued that Bitcoin's defense against censorship and disruption is due to the broad distribution of over 50% of hash power among a large number of people. The conversation then turned to the idea that miners have no technical or ethical obligation to follow any particular set of rules. Instead, security is based on decentralization, not well-behaved people or software. They also noted that if every person on the planet was a miner, it would be much harder to achieve consensus on any proposed material change. Regardless, the nature of sound money is that it doesn't change.In another email thread, concerns were raised over hashpower activated soft forks to censor transactions in response to user-activated soft forks (UASF) that the majority of hashpower disagrees with. However, it was clarified that the suggestion was not to censor transactions but to change the form they take. It was argued that a set of users forcing miners to do something is silly, and a minority miner fraction forcing the majority to do something is equally silly. Responding to such attacks with a proof-of-work hard fork that would result in two chains, allowing the market to decide which one "wins," was suggested. It was emphasized that Bitcoin only works when the majority of hashpower and the economic majority of users are balanced in power and have their goals aligned.In an email exchange, participants discussed whether a "hashpower activated soft fork to censor transactions" could be seen as censorship. It was argued that Bitcoin's defense against censorship and disruption is due to the broad distribution of over 50% of hash power among a large number of people. The conversation then turned to the idea that miners have no technical or ethical obligation to follow any particular set of rules. Instead, security is based on decentralization, not well-behaved people or software. It was noted that if every person on the planet was a miner, it would be much harder to achieve consensus on any proposed material change. The nature of sound money is that it doesn't change.The concept of User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) in Bitcoin is seen as a positive development that aligns with the balance of powers in the cryptocurrency. Unlike hard forks, UASF provides an opt-in feature that appeals to users interested in participating in the fork. In a UASF, the segwit-valid chain will be favored over the segwit-invalid chain if it has more work, leading to the annihilation of the latter. Only miners who recode their software can initiate such a fork.The accidental fork created after BIP66 was short-lived and lasted only a few blocks. Segwit-invalid coins are considered riskier assets and have a lower price than segwit-valid coins. Investors demand higher risk premiums for holding them, and short sellers may sell down the price if the value goes to zero. Hashpower follows price in cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, so the segwit-invalid chain will eventually be overtaken by a higher-hashrate chain.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T19:40:15.088441+00:00