pull down to refresh

333 sats \ 4 replies \ @denlillaapan 13 Jul \ parent \ on: I'm Luke de Wolf, Author of Defending Bitcoin, AMA security bitcoin AMA
The other is that a group of users is likely to essentially ragequit and fork off, and I don't like that. 110 activating smoothly avoids that outcome.

you don't think there's an equal, or large, risk of that happening if 110 activates...?

write
compose
12 sats \ 3 replies \ @lukedewolf OP 14 Jul

Not particularly. It's possible. Nobody is threatening to ragequit if 110 activates that I can see. And, if they do so, they will be ragequitting from Bitcoin, they won't be moving off to a new fork.

If a URSF develops, that's different.

reply
120 sats \ 2 replies \ @anon 14 Jul
If a URSF develops, that's different.

You mean like this?

reply
12 sats \ 1 reply \ @lukedewolf OP 14 Jul

Is anyone running it?

reply
12 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 14 Jul

Everyone is already running the URSF software. Whenever RDTS finds its first block and the Bitcoin chain is at least 100 blocks ahead of RDTS, the obvious thing is to call invalidateblock on the first RDTS block. It’s not in the interest of anyone to accept a reorg of 100 blocks or more.

reply