Huh. I like the mechanism. I like the honesty that once a feature with high demand and safety is ready, activation pressure will keep increasing.
The gradual march of time in this Decreasing Threshold proposal is predictable and incremental in ways that help avoid brinkmanship. Avoiding the hard fork dynamic (that LOT=true requires) prevents some chain splits, but activation under political opposition may then still depend on a UASF. If I thought the time had come to line up a UASF for a feature, I'd first want to have nodes out there running this softer Decreasing Threshold activation (maybe before it fails). It's also not as unresponsive to miner wisdom as LOT=true. Conceptually, it asks miners to arbitrate both version adoption as well as whether nodes which haven't upgraded face risks in an early activation. Should miners find themselves in dramatic unanimity, they even have enough influence to technically fail any activation. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
