Bitfury Mines a Block Signaling UASF Mandatory Segwit Deployment

Bitfury Mines a Block Signaling UASF Mandatory Segwit Deployment

12940
8
SHARE
Bitfury Mines a Block Signaling UASF Mandatory Segwit Deployment

Recently Bitcoin proponents who support Segregated Witness (Segwit) have been fervently discussing BIP 148, a User-Activated Soft Fork (UASF). On March 24 the mining operation Bitfury mined a block with a BIP 148 (=UASF-Segwit) tag, signaling the organization’s support for the proposal.

Also Read: Five Geeked Out Fantasies You Can Fulfill Today With Bitcoin

User-Activated Soft Fork Discussed Amongst Segwit Supporters

Bitfury Mines a Block Signaling UASF Mandatory Segwit DeploymentAs the block size debate continues, many are moving in different directions to come up with a solution for Bitcoin’s future scaling. A few weeks ago a pseudonym named “Shaolin Fry” introduced the idea of a Segwit UASF, which would attempt to activate Segwit before reaching a 95 percent threshold of consensus between miners. In essence, the proposal is a mandatory activation of Segwit deployment, which would take place between October 1 and November 15, 2017.

The idea has gained some traction with those that would like to see it explored and reviewed by other developers. BIP 148, authored by Shaolin Fry, is currently on Github and is available for community and developer review. The anonymous creator of BIP 148 explains the rationale behind UASF, otherwise known as “Flag Day”, detailing that P2SH was introduced in a similar fashion.

“Historically, the P2SH soft fork (BIP16) was activated using a predetermined flag day where nodes began enforcing the new rules,” explains Fry’s UASF proposal. “P2SH was successfully activated with relatively few issues. By orphaning non-signalling blocks during the last month of the BIP9 bit 1 “Segwit” deployment, this BIP can cause the existing “Segwit” deployment to activate without needing to release a new deployment.”

Bitfury Mines a Block Signaling UASF Mandatory Segwit Deployment
BIP 148 authored by the pseudonym Shaolin Fry.

Bitfury Mines a Block With a UASF Segwit Tag

On March 24, Bitcoin and blockchain infrastructure provider Bitfury mined a block containing a UASF Segwit tag, showing support for the BIP 148 proposal. Block 458793 and a couple of other blocks recorded by the blockchain included the UASF mandatory deployment of the Segwit tag.

Bitcoin community members from both sides of the debate discussed the tagged UASF blocks mined by Bitfury across social media. Supporters of UASF asked for technical guidance from developers concerning the proposal as there haven’t been any signs of engineers reviewing the idea thus far. Furthermore, some thought the tag by Bitfury was merely a political statement as one Redditor states:

“Should we just ignore these flags for now?” asks Reddit user Jerguismi. “It doesn’t cost a miner a penny to put whatever flag there, so it can be used to troll, etc. There isn’t widely available UASF version of Bitcoin client available, so signaling that flag doesn’t make much sense — except as a political statement, which doesn’t mean a lot IMO. Bitfury wouldn’t actually do the UASF currently because there is no sign that services generally are running the UASF fork (because UASF client isn’t available AFAIK).”

Bitfury Mines a Block Signaling UASF Mandatory Segwit Deployment
Blocks mined by the organization Bitfury containing the BIP 148 tag.

One Contentious Fork for Another?

Those who oppose the concept and have been supporting ideas like Bitcoin Unlimited (BU) had thought the idea was hypocritical. A few BU supporters thought it was ironic that people declared a forced deployment of Segwit different than miners choosing to vote for an alternative client. One commenter who disagreed with the idea of a UASF deployed Segwit mocked the concept by stating:

We are strongly opposed to a contentious hard fork, so strongly that we are prepared to change the PoW, a user activated soft fork, and Segwit, all contentious forks, to prevent a hard fork.

October 1 is months away so it could be a while before this proposal gets any real backing from the industry and developer support. For now, to some people, the UASF discussion continues to be merely chatter on the Internet but, with Bitfury allegedly making a political statement, that could change in the near future.

What do you think about BIP 148 a User-Activated Soft Fork to get Segwit deployed? Let us know in the comments below.


Images via Reddit, Github, and Shutterstock.


Express yourself freely at Bitcoin.com’s user forums. We don’t censor on political grounds. Check forum.Bitcoin.com.

  • Rj Miller

    If a hard fork was a such a great idea we would have seen it happen by now. (Once with Ether and we dont exactly like what happened)

    You want to hard fork then go do it.
    Remember this same thing has happened before with bitcoin vs bitcoin classic, and at least one other but the bitcoin classic is the most accurate example of this is not new. The coins who want to take bitcoins publicity and succsess without earning it themselves.

    PS Doesnt bitcoin jesus Roger V own this site? Sad to see his emotions when he spoke of sanctions in Iraq and Madeleine Albright justifying millions of dead children….A point he and I agree on.

    Juat activate segwit and put your greed asiide pls

    • Patrick Miller

      Agree. The emotions and rhetoric are absurd. The worst is implying a hard-fork is a protocol upgrade. These are not interchangeable terms. A hard fork can be an “upgrade”, but is not by definition. Playing around with the lexicon is just confusing for new users. It seems that BU is mostly supported by people who have never worked with bitcoin’s codebase, and have no understanding of how it works. Segwit is a backwards compatible upgrade and a no brainier.

      UASF is happening and will ratchet up the pressure dramatically on miners.

  • Ricky Bickerton

    Firstly I don’t understand why we cannot have both, remove the 1mb limit and then activate segwit (although I think more thorough SW testing is still needed) but a UASF is just BS, it is not a UASF it is a DASF or MASF, as I am a user and there is no way my opinion or any other users opinions are being counted, it will just be developers and miners, so calling it a UASF is political BS, trying to make out actual “users” are signalling this when in fact it is only miners and developers

  • Simo Nowinski

    segwit is cool, BU is uncool, there I said it

    • For the love of Bitcoin as Vinny Lingham says 🙂

    • Sean Michael

      Raise the block size and be done with it. Side chains are just another
      political power grab. Do what was originally envisioned in Satoshi’s
      papers. No to Bitstream and Core BS.

  • Sean Michael

    As I have said from the beginning, raise the block size and be done with it. Side chains are just another
    political power grab. Do what was originally envisioned in Satoshi’s
    papers. No to Bitstream and Core BS.

  • Joe

    Its Written in the books of Old School, BTC (I don’t know anyother BITCOIN) is Internet Gold – just like the value of Gold. Platinum and Uranium are costlier than Gold. People loves what is adopted by Masses and its usefulness.