On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 7:32 PM Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev <[email protected]> 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 - to protect against protocol sclerosis for the project as a whole? 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. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
