Admittedly, this is a bit of hind-sight on my part; but, for someone who actually chose to be invested in bip110, the potential to end up in this situation had to be foreseeable.
Frankly, if I were a bip110er - and I had been sold on the idea that this fork was an imminently existential emergency - I'd be more than a little miffed that the hard fork fall-back plan wasn't built right into the bip to begin with.
Replies (3)
Yeah, I can't imagine there's much time to get much input from others, and Peter points to a better way to randomize it in his post. Just seems sloppy, at best, from where I'm sitting.
BIS and IMF engineered this crisis, bip110 was always a controlled experiment.
People comparing it to UASF and saying “bitcoin dead wallst took over” need to understand this. I think that no one would support a rushed attempt with threats of forking off *without any plan*, especially when the solution did not fix the problem.
Can we just have relay policy already?!
