{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub192dh6dprqsvsrdeche436s9xunwnlyzpu7jl5j3d83nz62tgznrsnqwur0","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub192dh6dprqsvsrdeche436s9xunwnlyzpu7jl5j3d83nz62tgznrsnqwur0","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-03-05\n📝 Original message:\u003eI 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\nI don't think that's true. Say there are two forks of Blahcoin. Alice\nthinks there's a 55% chance that Fork A will succeed. Bob thinks there's a\n55% chance that Fork B will succeed. Alice trades all of her Fork B coins\nfor all of Bob's Fork A coins. Now, Bob and Alice both have a stake in one\nfork or the other succeeding. Alice starts spending more time around Fork A\nusers; Bob starts spending his time with Fork B users.\n\nA year passes, and Alice and Bob meet again. Bob tells Alice that Fork B\nhas been doing much better than Fork A, and is trading at ten times the\nprice. Alice replies that it doesn't matter, since Fork B will soon split\ninto B1 and B2. After all, if Fork B surrendered its principles once, it\ncan do so again. Bob replies that Fork B represents the true spirit of\nBlahcoin. Alice replies that all of the people whose opinion she respects\nbelieve that Fork B violates principles set down by the Founder (peace be\nupon him.)\n\nBob disagrees, and cites an annotated collection of the Founder's writings,\nwhich clearly show that if a situation like what provoked the Great Fork\nhappens, Fork B is in the right. All of the people Bob knows (except Alice)\nagree that this shows Fork A is invalid. Alice replies that Bob is\ncommitting the bandwagon fallacy; even if a thousand people believe that\nred is green, that does not make it true. Also, the collection takes\nseveral of the Founder's comments out of context. If one looks at comments\nmade prior to the release of Blahcoin, they lay out a framework that\nenvisions Fork A. Bob replies that Alice can't use statements made prior to\nthe release of Blahcoin to establish original intent; the system hadn't\nbeen designed yet.\n\nBob points out that Fork B has a higher total chainwork. Alice scoffs. She\nposits a Fork C, which is exactly like Fork A, except that chainwork is\ndefined to be the previous definition plus a quadrillion. Bob finds that\nridiculous. Fork C would transgress upon intrinsic principles of Blahcoin.\nNo more than Fork B does, Alice replies.\n\n----\n\nEach sentence above is true from some point of view. Each person sincerely\nbelieves in the rightness of their position. Is there some objective\nmeasure, that both Alice and Bob can agree on, that resolves this? I don't\nthink there is. Bob and Alice will sneer at each other for being idiots\nforever. The schism will never resolve.\n\nSatoshi Bless,\n--Nick\n\nOn Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 11:10 AM, David Vorick via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e I also think that the UASF is a good idea. Hashrate follows coin price. If\n\u003e the UASF has the higher coin price, the other chain will be annihilated. If\n\u003e the UASF has a lower coin price, the user activated chain can still exist\n\u003e (though their coins can be trivially stolen on the majority chain).\n\u003e\n\u003e The success of the UASF depends entirely on the price. And actually, the\n\u003e price is easy to manipulate. If you, as an economically active full node,\n\u003e refuse to acknowledge the old chain and demand that incoming coins arrive\n\u003e over the UASF chain. In doing so, you drive down the utility of the old\n\u003e chain and drive up the utility of the new chain. This ultimately impacts\n\u003e the price.\n\u003e\n\u003e I think it would be pretty easy to get high confidence of the success of a\n\u003e UASF. Basically you need all the major economic hubs to agree to upgrade\n\u003e and then exclusively accept UASF coins. I don't have a comprehensive list,\n\u003e but if we could sign on 75% of the major exchanges and payment processors,\n\u003e and get 75% of the wallets to upgrade, then the UASF would be very likely\n\u003e to successfully obliterate the old rules, as miners would be unable to sell\n\u003e their coins or pay their bills by stubbornly sticking to the old chain.\n\u003e It's less risky than a hard fork by far, because there is zero risk of coin\n\u003e split if the UASF has majority hashrate, which will follow majority\n\u003e economic value.\n\u003e\n\u003e A serious proposal I think would get all the code ready and merged, but\n\u003e without setting a flag day. Then we would get signatures from the major\n\u003e institutions promising to use the software and saying that they are ready\n\u003e for a flag day. After that, you release a patch with a flag day 12 months\n\u003e in the future. People can upgrade immediately, and have a full year to\n\u003e transition.\n\u003e\n\u003e That gives tons of time for people to upgrade, and tons of confidence that\n\u003e the UASF will end up as the majority chain.\n\u003e\n\u003e If we cannot get enough major exchanges, payment processors, and other\n\u003e economic hubs to upgrade,  the flag day should remain upset, as the risk of\n\u003e coin split will be non-zero.\n\u003e\n\u003e I would suggest that a carefully executed UASF is much riskier than a soft\n\u003e fork, but far, far less risky than a hard fork.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170305/59946aef/attachment.html\u003e"}