I’ll flirt with private opinions right here however as all the time different solutions are welcome if folks disagree with how I classify issues.

Anytime there may be an try at a consensus rule change and there may be resistance or opposition to that consensus rule change Bitcoin is then in chain break up territory or as shut as Bitcoin will get to a “warfare” over the consensus guidelines like we noticed with the block dimension wars. Therefore I and others have argued that consensus rule adjustments needs to be made (to the extent that they’re made in any respect) occasionally and with a really excessive bar of testing, evaluation and group consensus.

For example that an attacker desires to deploy a softfork, that is not desired by nearly all of the Bitcoin customers. Can he implement that softfork in a UASF-way, primarily flooding the community with nodes that help it?

The state of affairs you describe of a lone attacker with a number of sybil nodes is not notably regarding. At finest it may trigger disruption on the P2P community but it surely is not going to reach altering the consensus guidelines on the blockchain and on the Bitcoin community with out group adoption. Andreas Antonopoulos has described Bitcoin as having “constituents of consensus”. We may argue over how you can break these constituents down however they clearly embrace (in no specific order) financial full nodes (nodes verifying their financial exercise), protocol builders, miners, exchanges, wallets and protocols constructed on prime of the bottom layer. If you’re trying to vary the consensus guidelines and you do not have nearly all of these constituents onboard then Antonopoulos has described it as trying an financial blockade in the course of the ocean. Or in different phrases you could shout however nobody listens to you and simply sails round you. You might fork your self off the Bitcoin blockchain and the Bitcoin community however you will not reach altering the consensus guidelines for everybody else.

Hopefully we cannot have one other consensus rule “warfare” anytime quickly (ideally ever). Throughout “warfare” like eventualities there are “fog of warfare” like dynamics and misinformation intentionally unfold to trigger confusion. What constitutes a “warfare” can be unclear. A single particular person in the course of the ocean declaring “warfare” is ignored. If it begins to appear like the constituents of consensus are break up and one aspect goes to try to pressure by their consensus rule change in opposition to the opposite constituents’ needs then we’re undoubtedly in consensus rule “warfare” territory once more.

Personally (opinion alert) I believe there might be future mushy fork(s) tried with the overwhelming majority (ideally all) of the “constituents of consensus” onboard and cozy that the change being made is perfect and value taking the chain break up threat for. If we ever do try it will probably be all our duties to make sure correct info is circulated and any troublemakers from say altcoin communities do not reach turning that consensus rule change right into a “fog of warfare” like state of affairs. However as I mentioned I believe there may be normal acceptance at this level that the technical and group consensus bar needs to be very excessive earlier than embarking on an tried consensus rule change and that, maybe greater than the rest, protects in opposition to chain splits occurring out of nowhere.