4 ms·
> Some people in the Segwit camp are tired of waiting so they are attempting to force the issue without the support of most miners. The date they picked is Aug
by runeks 9y ago
> Some people in the Segwit camp are tired of waiting so they are attempting to force the issue without the support of most miners. The date they picked is Aug 1.
I don't understand why the bitcoin.org page sounds so alarmist. If the miners are not in on it why would some special Bitcoin blockchain (with alternative rules) matter, since miners could easily DoS this chain, if they wanted to, in case they don't support it?
Anyone can create their own chain with non-agreed-upon-rules (e.g. testnet3 or regtest), but that's just not Bitcoin precisely because it's practically ignored by miners (like a UASF).
Are bitcoin.org, themselves, supporters of this UASF?
- stale2002 9y agoKinda, they could DoS the UASF chain, but then the UASF chain could respond by doing a proof of work hard fork. If the community is behind it, then a POW change would render the 10s/hundreds of millions of dollars in mining equipment worthless. So the real question is whether or not the UASF side has the support of the community or economic majority.
- Cakez0r 9y agoYou mean proof of stake? Is there a working implementation of proof of stake yet? I thought it was mostly theoretical and academic at the moment.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- stale2002 9y agoNo, I meant proof of work. You change the proof of work algorithm so that the existing miners can't use their fancy Bitcoin miners, and it becomes profitable to mine with GPUs instead.
- peercoin 9y agoalgorand is academic at this point with evaluation on ec2. Though the paper is available and an implementation will be following. Peercoin is one of the first working proof of stake implementations that has been running for close to 5 years now.
- 6nf 9y agoThere are a few altcoins using Proof of Stake already
- lawn 9y ago> Are bitcoin.org, themselves, supporters of this UASF? Yes.