Author: pushd 2022-03-31 15:55:49
Published on: 2022-03-31T15:55:49+00:00
The discussion revolves around the misconception that Bitcoin soft fork upgrades are decided by a majority vote of miners. The user, pushd, argues that this misunderstanding has been misused by mining pools in the past to delay things and create a contentious environment. They also point out that many users, miners, and exchanges still think that signaling is voting. This, according to them, is a problem that needs to be addressed. In response, Billy Tetrud disagrees, stating that the solution is not to change how we engineer soft forks but to explain speedy trial better to those who misunderstand it. He also argues that changing the design will not improve the situation and that different people will have different opinions. Pushd counters this argument by listing the downsides of the misunderstanding, including the fact that the signaling period is a waste of time if mining pools that agreed on a soft fork earlier do politics or are influenced by councils such as BMC or governments during signaling. Additionally, it is considered as voting not just by people outside Bitcoin but the participants itself, and it gives miners an edge over economic nodes that enforce consensus rules. Simple persistent explaining has not helped in the last few years, and they believe that there is nothing wrong with listing this as one of the advantages for BIP8/LOT=TRUE.In conclusion, the discussion highlights the importance of understanding the nuances of Bitcoin soft fork activation mechanisms and the need to address any misconceptions surrounding it. While some argue that changing the design is not the solution, others believe that a better activation method could fix the existing problems.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T18:03:15.053275+00:00