Author: Anthony Towns 2021-03-01 14:33:33
Published on: 2021-03-01T14:33:33+00:00
Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr has expressed concerns about the potential chaos that could arise from non-signalled activation. He warns that anti-soft-fork and pro-SF nodes may end up on the same chain, following conflicting perceptions of the rules. This could result in a strong incentive not to rely on the rules if a resolution is not found. Dashjr cites a hypothetical scenario where a patented mining optimization would make a soft fork easier to use, leading to the patent holders wanting it activated immediately, while decentralization advocates want to hard-fork it out.The author of the article discusses the potential risks and downsides of implementing soft forks in cryptocurrency. For instance, allowing miners to steal user funds goes against new rules, and enforcing new rules can lead to hard-fork events and the need for new software. To mitigate these risks, the author suggests delaying activation until all objections are resolved or committing to activation on-chain based on specific criteria. The author also provides examples of past controversial soft forks, including halting segwit deployment due to covert ASICBoost which could have prevented a hard forked chain split. However, the existing plan was followed, and BCH resulted.The author notes that small numbers of advocates running code to enforce a flag day could lead to failure, and that controversy may prevent adoption of certain soft forks. As a solution, the author suggests supporting "user-prohibited soft-forks" in a similar way to "user-activated soft-forks," moving action to whether users are required/prohibited from signaling. Overall, the author emphasizes the need to carefully consider the implications and potential failure modes of implementing soft forks in cryptocurrency.
Updated on: 2023-05-21T01:12:52.709597+00:00