Crypto Coins News - Ratings - Reviews
I've seen a misunderstanding floating around that I wanted to correct.
Many people think the User-Activated Soft Fork (UASF) proposal involves counting nodes out there on the p2p network. They rightly say this would be open to sybil attacks and therefore is unsafe.
That is incorrect. UASF does not rely on counting nodes or any other sybil-able metric. Take the example of the full node belonging to BitGo. They provide wallet services to big exchanges like Kraken and Bitstamp. Their full node wallet is far more important to the economic majority than some node doing nothing running on rented hardware. BitGo's full node probably isn't even visible on the network for security reasons. So it would be really dumb to rely on p2p node counting, which is why nobody has even suggested it.
The real way we can figure out what the economic majority wants is simply by asking them. There is already this page (https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/) which lists more than 100 projects and businesses that are ready and willing for the BIP9 segwit soft fork. They include names like localbitcoins, coinbase.com and the already-mentioned BitGo, they form a huge part of the econoimc majority. After the technical details of UASF are discussed more, probably what will happen these busnesses will simply be asked whether they are willing to enforce the UASF for segwit, and if so, a new version of the full node software can be released.
Note that busnesses are being hit by the recent rise in miner fees. Projects generally receive lots of small payments which requires large and expensive transactions to combine together, so they pay more in miner fees proportionally than individual users. So businesses have a strong incentive to increase efficency somehow, hard forking is too unsafe so the only thing available right now is segwit.