You can try to redefine all you want but it doesn't make what you're saying
true.
A soft fork is a constriction of rules
A 51% attack is a soft fork with majority mining power.
I didn't say that LOT=true does it I said that it must achieve 51% miner
support to pose reorg risks to force
I personally don’t like the term 51% attack as applied to censorship. A miner
is free to mine or not mine any transactions it wants (censor). The term attack
is better reserved for stealing from someone (reclaiming spends using hash
power), as it implies a moral distinction.
But 51% attack is
On Tuesday 02 March 2021 18:22:35 Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I'm realizing that a clear advantage of LOT=false is that it can happen
> without the need for a social movement. All that is really needed is the
> convincing of 95% miners. Apathetic users will never notice any kind
It's becoming increasingly clear that core might not be able to release
activation code.
Anyone advocating for a UASF must do tremendous amounts of work to convince
users, miners, and service providers to run a UASF client. Anyone advocating
against a UASF or indifferent will take the path of
It is approximately 8 months since Steve Lee formally kicked off the
Taproot activation discussion by setting up the ##taproot-activation
IRC channel. Obviously there was discussion that considerably predates
that but that was the first recognition that there needed to be a
focus towards a
