Author: Suhas Daftuar 2017-05-22 19:23:22
Published on: 2017-05-22T19:23:22+00:00
The writer of this piece opposes the BIP 148 soft fork, arguing that it would introduce an arbitrary and disruptive consensus rule. While they support the adoption of segwit, they do not believe it justifies splitting the network. They suggest that if a "user-activated" deployment of segwit were pursued, it should be done more carefully than BIP 148 or 149 currently suggest. They propose improvements such as improving block relay from pre-segwit peers and optimizing transaction selection for miners who are willing to enforce the segwit rules but haven't upgraded their systems to mine segwit blocks.They argue against censorship hashpower on the network unless there is a very important reason for doing so. The writer suggests that the Bitcoin Core project stand up for best practices in deploying consensus changes and avoid adoption or encouragement of practices that could depart from those best practices. Gregory Maxwell, a Bitcoin Core developer, also opposes the proposed BIP148 user-activated soft fork (UASF) due to concerns that it may cause disruption. He argues that the BIP148 proposal does not meet the established standard of protocol development in the Bitcoin community and that it risks disrupting the network by forcing the activation of the existing (non-UASF segwit) nodes.In contrast, the recently implemented SegWit upgrade was carefully designed so that older unmodified miners could continue operating without interruption after SegWit activates. Maxwell supports the concept of a UASF but believes that softer approaches which avoid forced disruptions are superior. Ultimately, he argues that the reputation of Bitcoin as a stable and secure system is key and that we should have patience when deploying changes to the network.
Updated on: 2023-05-20T01:58:27.677321+00:00