| The article is behind a paywall, but it's essentially a revisionist account of the block size debate of 2017. This account seems pretty biased to me. For example, it not only gives short shrift to the user activated soft fork (USAF), but gets the basic facts wrong (page 15): > User activated soft forks require a large amount of coordination, particularly from industry. ... This is absurd. UASF was supported by far fewer companies than those supporting Segwit2x. A UASF is a declaration that nodes controlled by a group of users will reject generated blocks failing to conform to certain specifications. In the case of the 2017 incident, the specification was that the block must signal support for segwit, thus ensuring its activation. > ... The cohesive demand for a node-initiated upgrade of network rules gathers momentum around Bitcoin meet-up groups, forums, blog posts, social networks, conferences and company board rooms. With regard to SegWit, this momentum led to the ‘New York Agreement’ in 2017. The New York Agreement led to the ill-fated and incompetently executed Segwit2x proposal, not the UASF. The author could have discussed that initiative in detail but didn't. In short, the (single) developer was incompetent and the update didn't even activate properly. |