The whole concept (as I originally designed it) was for an emergency/reactive UASF. I'm not sure it makes sense any other way. For a non-eventful softfork, you'd want to start it 1-1.5 years into the future. And then with a 1 year expiry still?
Login to reply
Replies (6)
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)
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
if this isn't a huge red flag i no longer have anything to tell you!
nostr:nevent1qqsd29eg4a4qn5g5alqy0308mdg3zph8rwwccde8vvgxsc62nwhgazspzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgq3qlh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsxpqqqqqqz6v25ju
see? there's no fucking way the reactive activation part will hold up. that is not what bitcoin is. look at how knots are losing nodes to v30!
the fact that this even got released at all, with the blessing of Luke too ( https://primal.net/e/nevent1qqsd29eg4a4qn5g5alqy0308mdg3zph8rwwccde8vvgxsc62nwhgazsv07v4p ) showed how these people are so detached from reality...
get out from that basement of yours, talk to actual human beings, stop living in your bitcoin knighthood fantasy, touch some grass... that will surely help!
nostr:nevent1qqszllafk56y6mwwch9w3eu6u48dzn0wrmfdynlftlrhky3uy56tu8czyr5gdqw0l03dqe3j2vddjz02v80t4uasqf7d76x6ke9ft2p32vk87qcyqqqqqqgnwxfkv