BIP-119 UASF

BIP-119 UASF
From: alicexbt @ 2023-08-20 17:46 UTC ( / )
  To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

Hi Bitcoin Developers,

Note: This email is inspired from https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-March/018538.html written by Chris Belcher

Lets compare all covenant proposals:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YL5ttNb6-SHS6-C8-1tHwao1_19zNQ-31YWPAHDZgfo/edit#gid=0

Why general and recursive covenants are controversial:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-February/019976.html

Why I prefer CTV over APO?

- LN symmetry can be achieved with CSFS later if there is really a demand apart from twitter
- CTV improves LN
- CTV does not change how sighash works still we get covenants
- Less bytes
- More tooling
- Not recursive
- Not limited to taproot
- Other differences

MASF or speedy trial allows miners to coordinate and signal "readiness". This is misunderstood by lot of users as miners can always refuse to follow new consensus rules even after signaling or economics nodes can reject blocks with new consensus rules later.

Instead of doing this we could do a UASF in which things are clear that economic nodes enforce consensus rules and miners or majority of miners at this point wont go against bitcoin communities including nodes with some economic activity.

If there is a positive feedback, we could work on building UASF client for activation and bitcoin core can follow.

/dev/fd0

floppy disk guy