Bitcoin Changes With User-Signaled Soft Forks
UASF versus URSF is one mechanism for proposed changes to Bitcoin’s code. This should be the way changes to Bitcoin are decided and implemented.Watch This Episode On YouTubeListen To The Episode Here:AppleSpotifyGoogleLi...
Archive context
Older archive item. Useful for background and entity history, but not a fresh market-moving signal.
UASF versus URSF is one mechanism for proposed changes to Bitcoin’s code. This should be the way changes to Bitcoin are decided and implemented.
Listen To The Episode Here:
In this episode of “Bitcoin, Explained,” hosts Aaron van Wirdum and Sjors Provoost discuss URSFs, which stands for either User Rejected Soft Forks or User Resisted Soft Forks, depending on who you ask. URSFs are a recently introduced tool in Bitcoin’s upgrade mechanism toolkit.
In the first part of the episode, van Wirdum and Provoost explain that URSFs are best considered as the mirror equivalent of User Activated Soft Forks (UASFs) with mandated signaling. Whereas UASFs will reject blocks that don’t signal readiness for a soft fork toward the end of a soft-fork activation window, URSFs will reject blocks that do signal. If both UASF and URSF clients are deployed, they would in principle create a split in the blockchain.
In the second part of the episode, the duo outlines the various soft-fork upgrade mechanisms, ranging from Miner Activated Soft Forks (MASFs), flag day activated UASFs and mandated signaling UASFs. Van Wirdum then explains why he believes mandated signaling UASFs are his preferred method of deploying soft forks and why he thinks URSFs should be offered as an added option for users who prefer to reject the soft fork in the future. Van Wirdum shared, “The problem of course is that this would split the chain, but … If there is one group of people, an intolerant minority, that definitely wants something, and there’s another group of people that definitely don’t want that, then the chain should split … If people want different things, then they want different things.”
Finally, Provoost lays out the “rough consensus” guidelines as used in context of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), and how this applies to Bitcoin upgrades.
Why this matters
This bitcoin story adds another data point to the current market tape and is useful when read alongside nearby source coverage.
Original source
Read on Bitcoin MagazineRelated market context
StarkWare CEO Eli Ben-Sasson says Bitcoin needs a soft fork for quantum resistance
Bitcoin's quantum resistance hinges on timely protocol changes, balancing security upgrades with evolving cryptographic threats. T...
Tether freezes USDT linked to Ledger user thefts near $90 million
The freeze highlights the need for robust supply chain security and raises concerns about the limitations of centralized control i...
UK sanctions three crypto exchanges tied to Russian illicit funds
The UK sanctioned crypto exchanges and payment processors, some of which were tied to thousands of Russian entities and the sancti...
Bitcoin speculators move 55K BTC to exchanges amid $1.1B liquidations
Bitcoin dipped below $81,000, sparking mass crypto liquidations as traders sent BTC to exchanges at a loss.
XRPL’s $1.34 billion stablecoin base doesn’t tell us how much XRP users need
Tracked stablecoins on the XRP Ledger totaled $1.338 billion on Oct. 7. For XRP holders, the critical question is how much activit...
Europol says crypto’s quantum upgrade could take years and urges work to start now
Europol, the EU’s law enforcement agency, is urging the cryptocurrency industry to begin preparing wallet and protocol upgrades fo...