On Saturday 13 May 2017 12:48:48 PM Peter Todd wrote: > > You assume users will pay for signalling of softforks prematurely. So > > long as it waits until deployment of the softfork is widespread, this > > risk is minimal. At worst, it creates risks similar to a UASF. So long > > as UASF is the alternative, this way seems strictly better. > > I think you're assuming that the users paying for soft-fork signalling will > represent an economic majority; that's not necessarily the case.
I'm assuming that if the economic majority hasn't consented to the softfork, at least as many users will make their transactions conditional on non- signalling. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
