Softforks are backward compatible so long as miners are not performing attacks. It's a good attribute to have, but not relevant to the question at hand, where the miners are in fact attacking. During such circumstances, ex-full nodes are simply insecure.
-
-
Replying to @LukeDashjr @hugohanoi and
The majority of users were not enforcing bip148. Had some miners dare to defy bip148's proposal, there would have been 2 used chains. You can't dictate that I'm an "ex-full node" for not enforcing bip148 against my will.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @timoncc @hugohanoi and
That's where you're wrong. A majority of the users supported BIP148, and even if it turned out not all of them were enforcing, a split would have pushed the supporters who didn't enforce to begin doing so.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @LukeDashjr @timoncc and
There are 3 types of users: 1) users who actively supported BIP148 2) users who were aware but not supportive-including many pro-Segwit users. some prefered BIP149. 3) users who were completely unaware BIP148 were coercive & hurt groups 2 & 3. There's nothing "soft" about it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hugohanoi @LukeDashjr and
You keep saying "a majority of users supported BIP148", but the truth is that there was no reliable way to measure this, beyond the r/bitcoin tiny community and unreliable Twitter polls- which have biased samples given the inherent nature of Twitter.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @hugohanoi @LukeDashjr and
In what way whatsoever is it coercive to demand to be able to use an opt in feature that is opt in for everyone to validate(meaning no default imposed node costs) and even opt in for miners to mine?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @brian_trollz @LukeDashjr and
quoting Luke-jr's directly "a split would have pushed the supporters who didn't enforce to begin doing so"- That's coercive. Whoever dare staying on the legacy chain would face wipeout risk. THAT's coercive.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @hugohanoi @LukeDashjr and
Pushed them to do something directly themselves that they already supported? Coercive?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @brian_trollz @LukeDashjr and
Yes. You can have the same goals (Segwit activation) and at the same time disagree about how to get there. Nothing strange about that.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
well, excuse me for being rational ;-)
-
-
Replying to @hugohanoi @LukeDashjr and
Rationalizing is not rational.pic.twitter.com/Jt0DVD1CdL
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
