Quote from: PrimeNumber7 on April 04, 2021, 08:24:38 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on March 17, 2021, 08:46:27 AM

Quote from: PrimeNumber7 on March 17, 2021, 05:39:56 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on March 17, 2021, 05:08:08 AM

Quote from: PrimeNumber7 on March 16, 2021, 02:27:37 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on March 16, 2021, 11:01:44 AM

Then here we’ll have another governance problem, another stalemate. What if the economic majority/community/users/developers want an upgrade, but the miners hold the network hostage by not signalling for the upgrade? I believe the UASF proved that miners follow the full nodes that which creates a specific demand for the miner’s “product”. Blocks.

I would view a USAF change as contentious, and contentious changes should be avoided when possible.

Then which fork currently is the real Bitcoin? Definitely not the one with Segwit if you believe UASF was “contentious”.

SegWit was implemented after the miners agreed to the upgrade. A USAF upgrade was threatened, but this threat was never carried out. Read the article you posted, especially the last several paragraphs.

The UASF was starting to pick up, with some developers, and exchanges beginning to support it, that’s why the miners only started to agree with the update. Without UASF, they would have continued to hold the network hostage.

This is speculation. What ultimately matters is the economic supermajority.

Quote from: Wind_FURY on March 17, 2021, 08:46:27 AM

Quote from: PN7

Quote from: Wind_FURY on March 17, 2021, 05:08:08 AM

Quote from: PrimeNumber7 on March 16, 2021, 02:27:37 PM

I think it is best to attempt to get the miners to agree to an upgrade first, and depending on the feedback the miners give, a USAF change can be considered if the miners do not agree to a change. There is a big difference between a single miner with 10% of the network hashrate opposing a BIP, and a single pool with 5% of the network hashrate in favor of implementing a BIP. If it is the former, this is probably a miner holding the network hostage as you describe, and a USAF should be considered, while this is probably not the case for the latter.

It is very easy to fake economic activity and nodes. It is also difficult to tell if two people claiming to be two different people on the internet are actually two different people. What cannot be faked are found blocks. As I mentioned before, the miners have long-term incentives aligned with that of the long-term health of bitcoin.

OK, before the developers propose something to improve upon the protocol, they should meet with the miners first to see if they agree, then post it in the Bitcoin Mailing List, IRC, and the forum?

BIPs should be implemented the same way they are implemented now. Once a BIP is agreed upon and put into the codebase by the devs, the miners should signal support or opposition to a BIP via their found blocks.

What if the miners hold the network hostage again by not signalling readiness for an upgrade the community wants?

I previously discussed this possibility. If a BIP is not receiving support from the miners, the community could consider implementing a USAF, while taking into consideration the amount of support the miners gave. As I mentioned before, there is a difference between a small minority of miners supporting a BIP and a miner basically using veto power to oppose a BIP. The community should also consider alternatives to a USAF, such as lowering the activation threshold or modifying the BIP in a way that makes the miners more comfortable.

As I previously stated, the miners are the only entity that cannot fake their level of support. It is trivial to run an arbitrary number of fakes nodes, it is trivial to create an arbitrary number of online personas, and it is trivial to send many transactions to yourself to make it appear your business has a lot of economic activity, when your business does not have any customers.

That’s a good point, but does that mean that most/the majority of the community during 2017, that included users, exchanges, merchants, within the Bitcoin network were against Segwit? Or there was a chance they didn’t support it? I believe not.