UASF Economic Weight - page 2. | Bitcointalksearch.org

AngryDwarf

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 501

Quote from: www.uasf.co

Can BIP148 be cancelled?

Yes. In the event that the economic majority does not support BIP148, users should remove software that enforces BIP148. A flag day activation for SegWit would be the next logical steps and require ~~coordination~~ significant manipulation of the community, most likely towards the end of 2018.

Fixed it for them. Wink

AngryDwarf

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 501

Quote from: franky1 on April 11, 2017, 05:28:25 PM

Quote from: AngryDwarf on April 11, 2017, 04:53:47 PM

So what happens if the miners have a significant majority of hash power and are vehemently opposed to segwit, or the team which is trying to control the development of the protocol?

http://www.uasf.co/

Quote

Can BIP148 be cancelled?

Yes. In the event that the economic majority does not support BIP148, users should remove software that enforces BIP148. A flag day activation for SegWit would be the next logical steps and require coordination of the community, most likely towards the end of 2018.

in short, if bip9 dosnt get 95%, if UASF doesnt help to get segwit activated. they will ignore the fact that majority is not reached. and just try again wasting another year trying.

on thing the devs wont do before 2019 is to take a step back and listen to the community and actually do a proper consensus that includes more features to make the community happy

So are they suffering from Einstein's definition of insanity?

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: AngryDwarf on April 11, 2017, 04:53:47 PM

So what happens if the miners have a significant majority of hash power and are vehemently opposed to segwit, or the team which is trying to control the development of the protocol?

http://www.uasf.co/

Quote

Can BIP148 be cancelled?

Yes. In the event that the economic majority does not support BIP148, users should remove software that enforces BIP148. A flag day activation for SegWit would be the next logical steps and require coordination of the community, most likely towards the end of 2018.

in short, if bip9 dosnt get 95%, if UASF doesnt help to get segwit activated. they will ignore the fact that majority is not reached. and just try again wasting another year trying.

on thing the devs wont do before 2019 is to take a step back and listen to the community and actually do a proper consensus that includes more features to make the community happy

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Quote from: https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/847114060676018177

I don't think economic majority is that important. I started to invest into Bitcoin in 2011 by ignoring so called "majority".

AngryDwarf

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 501

Can anyone check the validity of my assertions so far?

AngryDwarf

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 501

So what happens if the miners have a significant majority of hash power and are vehemently opposed to segwit, or the team which is trying to control the development of the protocol?

They use enough hash power to ensure the original chain is the longest.

They use their remaining hash power to attack the segwit chain. This can be done in a number of ways, for example:
1. Mining empty blocks making the segwit chain economic useless.
2. Getting lucky by chaining empty blocks and releasing them orphaning genuinely mined segwit blocks which have transactions in them, yet again making the segwit chain economically useless.

In this case, the economic players (exchanges, payment services, etc.) declare the segwit chain dead and downgrade so they are back on the original chain.

Note, in this case we are not on a 'BU' chain, just the original bitcoin chain without segwit.

But what happens if the economic players decide to play a long term stance against the miners? This is where things will start to get really ugly.

AngryDwarf

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 501

Consider this situation if UASF occurs:

The majority of hash rate is non segwit, and they will start to create the longest chain. Non upgraded nodes follow this longest chain.
UASF nodes will split when the first segwit block is mined. They will then only accept blocks built on this chain, even if it is not the longest.

We now have a chain split.

If the economic players (major exchanges, bitcoin payment services, etc..) are on the segwit chain, the bitcoin mined on the longest chain is useless in an economic sense.

So the idea is this will then cause miners to switch to the segwit chain as this is where the economic activity is. Then the segwit chain becomes the longest chain and the old chain is orphaned.

If miners are only thinking of short term profits, this is what they will be forced to do.

But, what if the miners are willing to play a long term game?

bitone

member

Activity: 114

Merit: 10

"A UASF could be enforced by any number of economic nodes, although
hash power may only choose to follow such rules if there was
significant economic weight behind it." Source: http://www.uasf.co/

Does this mean: If the "Majority of the Exchange Volume" votes for UASF, then Miners have to follow?

What means this "significant economic weight" exactly and how are the chances that these thresholds are reached?

Thanks,

Bitone

Topic: UASF Economic Weight - page 2. (Read 1439 times)