Does a UASF require a majority of nodes to be aproved? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

Does a UASF require a majority of nodes to be aproved?

1276 sats \ 11 comments \ @88b0c423eb 9h bitcoin_beginners

I can't find accurate info about UASF and if it requries a majority to go on. My concern is a lot of cryptobros setting up umbrels and start9s that only care about numebrs go up and zero about freedom.

view all related items

222 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 9h

There isn't really a proven standard for UASF, just theories. You don't need a majority for anything, this is not a democracy. If you and 1% of the network want new rules, you can run them. We'll call you a shitcoiner the moment you fork off.

However, your point about non-caring nodes is valid, and this is why if one thinks that it is hard for miners to agree on a softfork, imagine how hard it is to get nodes to do it, especially when you know that there are lots of fire-and-forget nodes. I'm not sure who is LARPing about UASF but whatever they want, it's probably not going to work the way they think it will.

200 sats \ 3 replies \ @88b0c423eb OP 9h

Interesting perspective, my fear is exactly that, that it becomes a demo(niac)cracy. And in practice my concern are those umbrel and start9 nodes without the freedom to chose which version of core or knots to use. And the motivation of those people running those nodes, as in my imagination there's the risk of them being manipulated into some direction toghether with blackrock saylor and etc, just like the crowds in a democracy.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 8h

I think you're right that anyone that uses a third party to select what software they run is a weaker link than those that make well-informed choices, and therefore they:

don't necessarily understand the software they run, and thus
haven't made choices needed to operate a node properly, and thus
can relatively easily be tricked into running software that isn't in their best interest (though arguably, you can get gaslit on twitter all the same and still make choices against your own interest.)

This is arguably the hardest part of Bitcoin when facing a blocking minority holding out or, worse, majority misinformation. But, so far it's been pretty good and crises have not really disrupted that much, yet.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @falsefaucet 6h

to be devils advocate, as of right now, alot of the out of the box node stacks DO allow you to dictate CORE/KNOTS.

doesnt take away from your very valid point regarding centralizing factors when it comes to node software

5 sats \ 0 replies \ @88b0c423eb OP 4h

Indeed, I always used raspibolt, minibolt guides and similar stuff. Last month I tried umbrel and was surprised how it does not let me choose what version of core/knots to use. Or maybe I did not find, anyway I feel much more confortable isntalling debian and doing the rest manually with much more freedom.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @lightcoin 7h

This section of a post I published before the last UASF in 2017 may be helpful:

A UASF relies on the fact that it is not the miners but the economy of bitcoin users that set the rules of the bitcoin network by throwing their economic weight behind one rule set over others.

Once a UASF is enforced by a given full node, any blocks produced by miners that do not comply with the rules of the UASF will be rejected by that node. If enough economic nodes enforce the UASF, then miners will be strongly incentivized to comply with the rules so that they’ll be able to sell the bitcoin mined in their blocks (and avoid losing their block rewards in a reorg).

https://lightco.in/2017/06/02/segwit-uasf/

And this post is not specific to UASF but may help you build a better understanding of how consensus changes work in bitcoin:

https://lightco.in/2017/07/30/bitcoin-fork-split/

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 9h

I don’t think a majority’s needed, but I might be wrong. https://river.com/learn/terms/u/user-activated-soft-fork-uasf/

135 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 7h

From that link:

If a node does not update, they are not harmed at all.

What they didn't mention though: what happens if a bunch of miners doesn't upgrade? Because that's the issue; if a majority of economic nodes starts enforcing something and a minority of miners starts mining it, then there is a way for an attacker to trick non-migrated miners to violate the new rule (as the new rule is always narrower.) This would cause nasty chaintip forks, like what we saw with CSV when miners had signalled support but the block templates construction was done outside of consensus (and thus were illegally spending time-locked coin according to consensus rules.)

So, whatever you do, you have to get at least a majority of miners on-board and, preferably, not leave anyone behind, unless they choose to.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @88b0c423eb OP 9h

I read about 80% during segwit in 2017, but not sure it was a number of UASF signaling nodes or a requirement.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xbitcoiner 9h

it’s not a requirement. @optimism explained it well, that’s how I see it too.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @88b0c423eb OP 8h

great then