{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub14h948ndawt32ps3y225sslch8344tmw8k5z0lxuxr6wq9tu6sl2qj9yjx0","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub14h948ndawt32ps3y225sslch8344tmw8k5z0lxuxr6wq9tu6sl2qj9yjx0","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-03-05\n📝 Original message:I also think that the UASF is a good idea. Hashrate follows coin price. If\nthe UASF has the higher coin price, the other chain will be annihilated. If\nthe UASF has a lower coin price, the user activated chain can still exist\n(though their coins can be trivially stolen on the majority chain).\n\nThe success of the UASF depends entirely on the price. And actually, the\nprice is easy to manipulate. If you, as an economically active full node,\nrefuse to acknowledge the old chain and demand that incoming coins arrive\nover the UASF chain. In doing so, you drive down the utility of the old\nchain and drive up the utility of the new chain. This ultimately impacts\nthe price.\n\nI think it would be pretty easy to get high confidence of the success of a\nUASF. Basically you need all the major economic hubs to agree to upgrade\nand then exclusively accept UASF coins. I don't have a comprehensive list,\nbut if we could sign on 75% of the major exchanges and payment processors,\nand get 75% of the wallets to upgrade, then the UASF would be very likely\nto successfully obliterate the old rules, as miners would be unable to sell\ntheir coins or pay their bills by stubbornly sticking to the old chain.\nIt's less risky than a hard fork by far, because there is zero risk of coin\nsplit if the UASF has majority hashrate, which will follow majority\neconomic value.\n\nA serious proposal I think would get all the code ready and merged, but\nwithout setting a flag day. Then we would get signatures from the major\ninstitutions promising to use the software and saying that they are ready\nfor a flag day. After that, you release a patch with a flag day 12 months\nin the future. People can upgrade immediately, and have a full year to\ntransition.\n\nThat gives tons of time for people to upgrade, and tons of confidence that\nthe UASF will end up as the majority chain.\n\nIf we cannot get enough major exchanges, payment processors, and other\neconomic hubs to upgrade,  the flag day should remain upset, as the risk of\ncoin split will be non-zero.\n\nI would suggest that a carefully executed UASF is much riskier than a soft\nfork, but far, far less risky than a hard fork.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170305/fa9b6571/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}