pull down to refresh
47 sats \ 4 replies \ @Rock 11 Apr \ on: Should we stop relying on Bitcoin Core to introduce soft forks? bitcoin
We need some way where a large portion or a majority of nodes/consensus participants can organize and essentially vote on soft forks, or easily start running the forks.
Polls on different platforms seem like a decent idea, but then there's issue of actually pulling the code to your node and running it.
Maybe it would be helpful if the community could somehow agree on scheduling votes or something like that, not sure.
Not super familiar with the entire process of "speedy trial" and other such soft-fork methods, so maybe those things are already kind of being handled in some way.
I feel like the soft fork process really needs better public understanding of how to participate and what mechanisms they can actually use to vote. I definitely need to go and do my own research...
I think you would be interested in this proposal: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/economic-majority-signaling-for-op-ctv-activation/635
I myself am starting to think about putting "LNHance good" in my services field or something so when people look in their peers list they can see what their fellow node runners think.
reply
There is the feeling of "rough consensus" and the idea that it's harder to game or control a thing when there is no clear process. And both those things are good.
So I don't think there needs to be an "official soft fork process."
There does seem to be a feeling, at least among Bitcoin core contributes who make statements about it, that they don't want to be deciding which forks to pursue.
Francis's tweet got some interesting responses. It's worth poking around the thread on twitter.