Quote from: figmentofmyass on February 19, 2020, 08:38:34 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on February 19, 2020, 08:00:15 AM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on February 18, 2020, 07:30:44 PM

i think segwit established that BIP9 is an inferior activation method. miners should be able to accelerate activation but not block it. a BIP8-style flag day activation---done on a reasonably long time frame vs BIP148---seems appropriate.

i do hope we can avoid another recklessly hasty fork like BIP148.

Miner-signalling is only for that purpose, to signal that they're ready for an upgrade. It was never intended to be a political tool to exert control for themselves, and what they want for the network. BIP148 was merely a reaction from the community.

nevertheless, BIP148's timeline was dangerous and conducive to a network split. it may have been proposed on the mailing list a month or two prior, but the UASF campaign essentially began ~2 months before flag day. that was very little time to amass full node support and thus pressure miners to prevent a network split.

i'd like to see a 1+ year timeline for a UASF. miners can activate earlier if they want to, but that seems like a reasonable minimum given the risks.

That's "blockchain governance" for you. Miners wanted something, the community/economic majority wanted something else. I believe it would always follow the path of the community/economic majority. It's the community that creates the demand for blocks.