Why not separating both? 1.- Reactive/emergency UASF and 2.- UASF planned 1y ahead but permanent, not temporary.
I think Emergency UASF will have way less consensus around it and when/if the offending block happens IMO it will generate a split chain. The chain with the offending block will be considered bitcoin by most people (including miners, exchanges and businesses)
Planned UASF can have way more consensus around it. I think we could limit OP_Return to 80 in CR and also make inscriptions way more expensive. Maybe we could just remove the segwit discount, or at least, change the 4x to 2x (with the additional benefit of having blocks smaller)
Login to reply
Replies (3)
I do not support the rules in BIP444 on a permanent basis.
so, what, we'd need to do another soft fork later to revert them?
Reverting a softfork without an upfront expiry is a hardfork