Reminder that a softfork, even a miner-activated softfork (MASF), is always user-enforced.
Miners attempting to enforce a rule change on their own is what's called a 51% attack.
It's impossible to have a covert softfork.
Thread
Login to reply
Replies ()
I dont always agree with you but this is correct
Grateful if someone could link to the best pro/con resources 🙏
Pro/con of... Bitcoin??
Thought you had said this in relation to BIP 300/301 on drivechains. My bad if the comment was totally unrelated.
That’s what I was looking for.
Drivechain (BIPs 300+301) | Drivechain: Peer-to-Peer Bitcoin Sidechains
@LukeDashjr what do you think about the practice of limiting the maximum length of the reorganization and disconnecting the node from the chain, is it useful or there are nuances?
Here’s a pressing question. Is that really you back on X?
As a jr pleb please help. Why won't state actors compromise BTC core devs and subtly alter things over time. Maybe in ways that are 4d chess and don't show as an attack vector till the 57th move? This protocol, plus this miner group, plus these wallets equal ??
I suspect they may have. Not necessarily with this though
This is why ossification is important. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
And more precisely, the users who *receive* bitcoin in exchange for something else.
What does it mean user enforced exactly?
Spin 1000 nodes on a cloud do you have any power to enforce a softfork?
A whale (or a few whales) on binance who never run a node can determine the value of the chain they prefer?