October 13, 2026

Capitalizations Index – B ∞/21M

Core Dev Maxwell: UASF ‘Does Not Measure Up To Standard’

Core dev maxwell: uasf ‘does not measure up to standard’

bitcoin core developer Greg Maxwell has newly outlined why he “does not support” a user-activated soft fork (UASF) as it figures in BIP 148.


Maxwell: UASF ‘Guarantees Disruption’

In a circular to the Core mailing list Friday, Maxwell said that although he is not strictly against a soft fork, its incarnation in BIP 148’s UASF does not “really measure up to the standard set by segwit itself.”

The debate over whether to galvanize the entire bitcoin ecosystem into Segwit activation via a UASF has gained considerable traction over the last month.

Core dev maxwell: uasf ‘does not measure up to standard’

Proponents say it is the quickest way to move bitcoin on from its current stalemate, yet detractors highlight its disruptive nature as a reason for caution. If a UASF occurred, for example, non-supportive miners would find their blocks invalid after the deadline, and would not receive rewards for their work.

Maxwell too notes that this “disruption” is a key difference between a UASF and segwit activation via miners.

“The primary flaw in BIP148 is that by forcing the activation of the existing (non-UASF segwit) nodes it almost guarantees at a minor level of disruption,” he continued. “Segwit was carefully engineered so that older unmodified miners could continue operating _completely_ [sic] without interruption after segwit activates.”

 

Time Still Not Of The Essence

Despite the increasingly slow and expensive nature of the bitcoin network, Maxwell still advocates a measured approach without speed as a priority.

…The fastest support should not be our goal, as a community– there is always some reckless altcoin or centralized system that can support something faster than we can– trying to match that would only erode our distinguishing value in being well engineered and stable.

First do no harm.’ We should use the least disruptive mechanisms available, and the BIP148 proposal does not meet that test.

The developer has meanwhile found himself under fire lately from bitcoin Unlimited proponents, notably Roger Ver, who released a dedicated presentation with quotes from Maxwell highlighting alleged errors.

“It’s important the users not be at the mercy of any one part of the ecosystem to the extent that we can avoid it– be it developers, exchanges, chat forums, or mining hardware makers,” Maxwell concluded.

Ultimately the rules of bitcoin work because they’re enforced by the users collectively– that is what makes bitcoin bitcoin, it’s what makes it something people can count on: the rules aren’t easy to just change.

Meanwhile, bitcoin’s recent price spike over $1,200 has been attributed by some to a sharp rise in the number of UASF-signaling nodes. Though this does not necessarily imply causation, the price has also dipped following the publication of Maxwell’s post.

Core dev maxwell: uasf ‘does not measure up to standard’

What do you think about Greg Maxwell’s perspective on a UASF? Let us know in the comments below!


Images courtesy of uasf.org, twitter.com, shutterstock

The post Core Dev Maxwell: UASF ‘Does Not Measure Up To Standard’ appeared first on Bitcoinist.com.

Previous Article

Bitcoin JSON-RPC Tutorial 5 – Your First Calls

Next Article

_MG_7081

You might be interested in …

ReturnValues Ethereum word cards – ReturnValues – Medium

ReturnValues Ethereum word cards – ReturnValues – Medium As the premier Blockchain expertise company, ReturnValues distributes own manufactured Ethereum word cards to contribute the right ecosystem for the Blockchain. Ethereum A Blockchain platform borned in […]

Introducing a Programming Language so Simple, It “Fits on a T-shirt”

http://plas2017.cse.buffalo.edu/

Blockstream is introducing Simplicity, a new programming language for blockchain-based smart contracts, intended for inclusion in Blockstream’s sidechains and eventually in bitcoin. The new language was presented by its creator, Russell O’Connor, Infrastructure Tech Developer at Blockstream, at the ACM SIGSAC Workshop on Programming Languages and Analysis for Security (PLAS 2017).

“Simplicity is a blockchain programming language that is so simple, it fits on a t-shirt,” O’Connor told bitcoin Magazine. “It is critical that smart contracts behave in ways that all participants expect, and applying formal verification to Simplicity allows us to achieve that.”

Simplicity is still a Blockstream Research & Development project, but there’s potential for its use in Blockstream products in the future, according to the company’s announcement.

“Simplicity is flexible enough that I anticipate many new, domain-specific, languages will generate Simplicity, and this will give users the freedom to generate smart contracts using the tools that most suit their needs,” added O’Connor.

O’Connor’s paper, titled “Simplicity: A New Language for Blockchains,” presents Simplicity as “a new programming language, designed to be used for cryptocurrencies and blockchain applications, which aims to improve upon existing cryptocurrency languages, such as bitcoin Script and Ethereum’s EVM [virtual machine], while avoiding some of the problems they face.”

bitcoin script is limited by design and unsuitable for complex smart contracts that need more than a small set of simple templates to perform tasks like digital signature verification. Ethereum, on the other hand, includes a more expressive and flexible, Turing-complete programming language, which allows for arbitrarily complex smart-contracts in principle.

But, in practice, Ethereum doesn’t support static analysis to pre-determine the computing resources that a program will require and, thus, filter out too costly contracts and infinite loops. Therefore, pre-paid “gas” fees are lost when an Ethereum program “runs out of gas.” The simpler bitcoin scripting, which supports static analysis, doesn’t present similar issues.

In a post to the bitcoin-dev mailing list, O’Connor proposed Simplicity as an alternative to bitcoin Script, noting that static analysis is important for both node operators and for Simplicity program designers.

“Static analysis is a technique that provides a universal algorithm to determine how much any Simplicity program will cost to run before you stake your money on it,” O’Connor told bitcoin Magazine.

Simplicity can be seen as a more flexible alternative to bitcoin scripting, not Turing-complete but expressive enough to build useful smart contracts for blockchain applications, or as an alternative to Ethereum, which will support static analysis and other desirable features including improved safety, formal semantics, and Merkelized Abstract Syntax Trees (MASTs).

While Simplicity is intended as a low-level language for smart contracts, O’Connor envisages the possibility of compiling programs written in higher-level languages (like Ethereum’s Solidity) to Simplicity.

“Ivy and the Σ-State Authentication Language are existing programming language development efforts that may be suitable for being compiled to Simplicity,” notes O’Connor in the paper. “For the time being, generating Simplicity with our [Haskell] and [Coq] libraries is possible.”

The next step in Simplicity’s development will be a bare-bones SDK (Software Developer Kit) that will include formal semantics and correctness proofs in Coq, a Haskell implementation for constructing Simplicity programs and a C interpreter for Simplicity. Then, the new language will be ready for initial deployment in the Elements project, Blockstream’s open-source codebase for sidechains, so that developers can start experimenting with the code.

But, as O’Connor stated on bitcoin-dev, “Only after extensive vetting would it be suitable to consider Simplicity for inclusion in bitcoin.”

The post Introducing a Programming Language so Simple, It “Fits on a T-shirt” appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.