The price of Bitcoin has fallen dramatically over the last 24 hours. At press time, the currency is wallowing at $ 8,477 – roughly $ 600 less than where it …
Google Alert – bitcoin
Hello, welcome to episode 48 of The Bitcoin Game, I’m Rob Mitchell.In episode 47 you heard the Bitcoin Scaling panel I moderated at the State Of Digital Money in Los Angeles. While I loved being part of that panel, I really didn?’?t get to ask many questions. The time allotted to that panel went by so quickly that I really wanted more! So, I was able to arrange interviews with Ryan X. Charles and Eric Lombrozo to dig a bit deeper into some issues around scaling and Bitcoin forks. In…
Less than three weeks ago /u/shaolinfry proposed not only BIP148 but also an alternative called bip-uaversionbits-strong.
/u/nullc was asked in "Gregory Maxwell – I do not support the BIP 148 UASF – very well written, tx Greg!" which alternative proposal he'd find superior and gave bip-uaversionbits-strong as an example pointing to this diff. The diff uses a sample timeline from Nov 2017 to April 2018 for activation.
bip-uaversionbits-strong states in the motivation section: "This specification provides an way for full nodes to coordinate syncronized activation based on a median past time using the BIP9 state machine."
I'd welcome some more insights how "coordinated syncronized activation between full nodes" is intended to work, as I can't see this from the sample code and it'd best be described in text and amended to the draft BIP anyway.
Edit: I now realize bip-uaversionbits-strong is the original introduction of UASF by shaolinfry in [bitcoin-dev] Moving towards user activated soft fork activation however shortly after the discussion moved to and focussed on BIP148 which is the more "aggressive" way of activating segwit by orphaning non-segwit supporting blocks after a trigger date. I'd be useful to find out more about a BIP9 driven approach as asked above.
submitted by /u/etmetm