Crypto Coins News - Ratings - Reviews
Hello everyone, now that april fools is behind us we can start to talk serious again. What would be the worst case scenario if we dont get segwit until next year?
For example, what if we give miners the full bip9 signalling period to signal segwit so that nodes may safely activate it?
The period is believed to end in november. And if miners fail to get ready by then i think that will be a powerfull motivator for a UASF. Until then i think miners should keep responsibility of signalling SegWit because MASF are a really neat mechanism we dont want to bin without any thought. For example there could be more softforks after SegWit – one of which implements aggregated signatures which is a relatively big scalability and privacy boost. But in a way the talks of UASF is helping the miners delay SegWit activation because then all of a sudden SegWit is not their responsibility.
And if we resort to UASF, upgrades after SegWit will take just as long to implement. It does not seem prudent. There is also the question of who organises the UASF? Is Core going to say, allright the network is softforking to schnorr signatures on this and this date. That seems to centralized to me.
Tl;dr as far as i can see the best case scenario is MASF or Status quo. Any feedback is much appreciated. Thank you.