[bitcoin-dev] Defending against empty or near empty blocks from malicious miner takeover?
ctpacia at gmail.com
Sun Mar 26 09:13:17 UTC 2017
On Mar 25, 2017 10:38 PM, "Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
As a Bitcoin user I find it abhorrent the way you are proposing to
intentionally cripple the chain and rules I want to use instead of just
I just want to point out what appears to be doublespeak going on here.
First, I think it would seem obvious to an observer that a sizable portion
of the community (certainly greater than 5%) view segwit as preventing
"rules I want to use instead of just peacefully splitting" but no
consideration was given to these people when designing segwit as a
softfork. I believe it was Luke who went as far as saying consensus does
not matter when it comes softforks.
Furthermore, when segwit was first introduced it kicked off a round of
softfork/hardfork debate which I participated in. The primary concern that
I and other raised was precisely what is going on now.. that miners could
unilaterally impose an unpopular change to the protocol rules.
At the time I told, rather forcefully, by multiple people that miners have
an "absolute right" to softfork in whatever rules they want. Which, of
course, is absurd on it's face.
But I don't see how people can make such claims on the one hand, and then
complain when this process is used against them.
It amounts to nothing more than "When it's rules I like we get to impose
them on non-consenting users. When it's rules I don't like it's an attack
on the network".
It was completely obvious this entire time that softforks were a very
slippery slope, now we are indeed sliding down that slope.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitcoin-dev