On Friday 05 March 2021 14:51:12 Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 7:32 PM Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev > > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > So that leads me to believe here that the folks who oppose LOT=true > > primarily have an issue with forced signaling, which personally I > > don't care about as much, not the idea of committing to a UASF from > > the get go. > > The biggest disconnect is between two goals: modern soft-fork > activation's "Don't (needlessly) lose hashpower to un-upgraded > miners"; and UASF's must-signal strategy to prevent inaction. > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-January/017547 >.html > > This question dives to the heart of Bitcoin's far-out future. > Of two important principles, which principle is more important: > > - to allow everyone (even miners) to operate on the contract they > accepted when entering the system; or
There was never any such a contract. Even full nodes must upgrade in a softfork, or they lose their security and become comparable to light wallets. > - to protect against protocol sclerosis for the project as a whole? What? > Do miners have a higher obligation to evaluate upgrades than economic > nodes implementing cold storage and infrequent spends? If they do, > then so far it has been implicit. LOT=true would make that obligation > explicit. Miners either make valid blocks or they don't. The only thing they "need" to evaluate is the market for their work. Luke _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
