<p>The total node count is not relevant. It's easy to spin up  nodes, or even fake nodes that just report a certain user agent string. That doesn't mean that they care about the rules, plan to keep following them if the hashrate majority goes another way, whether they'd even notice if they're forked off, or even whether they actually implement the rules.</p>

<p>What does matter is how much economic activity is following the fork's rules, and whether they're planning to keep doing so regardless of what happens.</p>

<p>Measuring that is something you cannot do inside the protocol. You need to look at company statements, press, ...</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-13T19:40:18.893Z
Just an idea.. Would it be possible to reliable track user support if each transaction contained a signal instead of each block? That would require fake nodes to loose money on fees.
Maestro
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-14T02:16:59.090Z
That sounds like requiring a soft fork in order to track a different soft fork.  Furthermore, it doesn't solve the problem.  Fake nodes wouldn't be sending any transactions, so how would they incur fees?
Jestin
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-16T15:07:12.100Z
@Jestin If fake nodes don't send any transactions they also have no voting-rights, because 1 transaction = 1 vote.
Maestro
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-16T15:11:32.767Z
@Muis, it's not a node creating a transaction that is effectively a vote, it's a node relaying a block or transaction.  Relay nodes don't pay fees to relay other people's transactions.
Jestin
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-16T15:16:08.107Z
@Jestin Relays? I think you're misunderstanding my proposal. It doesn't require a softfork, everything stays compatible, and offcourse relay nodes do not get voting rights this way, why should they?
Maestro
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-16T15:32:46.177Z
A USAF is complicated, especially when trying to think of it in terms of voting.  Not all votes are equal.  For example, a single exchange's vote is probably worth more than nearly everyone else's (non exchange) votes combined.  Would counting support on their transactions really be a good measurement?  It's more about if miners depend on an entity than how many transactions they do.
Jestin
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-16T15:35:44.987Z
@Jestin Exchanges are responsible for a very large share of the transactions (every withdrawal), even though technically its not their BTC, so yes I believe that would be a reasonable measurement. But let's continue here https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/56734/why-are-transactions-not-used-for-signalling
Maestro
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-13T18:57:27.403Z
2017-07-14T04:53:47.910Z
2017-07-14T04:53:47.910Z
Pieter Wuille
<p>No measurement is going to give you the full picture due to sybil attacks, incomplete datasets, data source abstraction/summarization, etc.</p>

<p>However, there are resources out there that are trying to make it easier to see through the fog:</p>

<p>Nodes: <a href="https://coin.dance/nodes" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://coin.dance/nodes</a></p>

<p>Blocks (miners): <a href="https://coin.dance/blocks" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://coin.dance/blocks</a></p>

<p>Poli (companies): <a href="https://coin.dance/poli" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://coin.dance/poli</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-14T17:42:27.267Z
2017-07-14T17:42:27.267Z
Klakurka
<p>It's easy to see that currently <a href="http://bitcoin.sipa.be/versions.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">50% of the hashrate</a> supports Segwit.</p>

<p>It's also simple to find that about <a href="https://uasf.saltylemon.org/?graph=nodes" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1000 nodes</a> are supporting it. But I can't seem to figure out how significant that amount is, since all the total node counts are very rough estimates, and not all nodes are public.</p>

<p>So what is the best way to find out how solid the support under non-mining nodes is right now?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-13T18:38:33.983Z
does that help ? https://coin.dance/blocks
Sufiyan Ghori
<segregated-witness><blockchain-fork><bip148-uasf><activation-mechanism>
How to track UASF support?
Maestro
# How to track UASF support?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-07-13)

It's easy to see that currently [50% of the hashrate](http://bitcoin.sipa.be/versions.html) supports Segwit.

It's also simple to find that about [1000 nodes](https://uasf.saltylemon.org/?graph=nodes) are supporting it. But I can't seem to figure out how significant that amount is, since all the total node counts are very rough estimates, and not all nodes are public.

So what is the best way to find out how solid the support under non-mining nodes is right now?

**Tags:** segregated-witness, blockchain-fork, bip148-uasf, activation-mechanism

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: does that help ? https://coin.dance/blocks  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-07-13. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

The total node count is not relevant. It's easy to spin up nodes, or even fake nodes that just report a certain user agent string. That doesn't mean that they care about the rules, plan to keep following them if the hashrate majority goes another way, whether they'd even notice if they're forked off, or even whether they actually implement the rules.

What does matter is how much economic activity is following the fork's rules, and whether they're planning to keep doing so regardless of what happens.

Measuring that is something you cannot do inside the protocol. You need to look at company statements, press, ...

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Just an idea.. Would it be possible to reliable track user support if each transaction contained a signal instead of each block? That would require fake nodes to loose money on fees.  
> **username_3**: That sounds like requiring a soft fork in order to track a different soft fork.  Furthermore, it doesn't solve the problem.  Fake nodes wouldn't be sending any transactions, so how would they incur fees?  
> **username_0**: @username_3 If fake nodes don't send any transactions they also have no voting-rights, because 1 transaction = 1 vote.  
> **username_3**: @Muis, it's not a node creating a transaction that is effectively a vote, it's a node relaying a block or transaction.  Relay nodes don't pay fees to relay other people's transactions.  
> **username_0**: @username_3 Relays? I think you're misunderstanding my proposal. It doesn't require a softfork, everything stays compatible, and offcourse relay nodes do not get voting rights this way, why should they?  
> **username_3**: A USAF is complicated, especially when trying to think of it in terms of voting.  Not all votes are equal.  For example, a single exchange's vote is probably worth more than nearly everyone else's (non exchange) votes combined.  Would counting support on their transactions really be a good measurement?  It's more about if miners depend on an entity than how many transactions they do.  
> **username_0**: @username_3 Exchanges are responsible for a very large share of the transactions (every withdrawal), even though technically its not their BTC, so yes I believe that would be a reasonable measurement. But let's continue here https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/56734/why-are-transactions-not-used-for-signalling  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2017-07-14. Score: 2

No measurement is going to give you the full picture due to sybil attacks, incomplete datasets, data source abstraction/summarization, etc.

However, there are resources out there that are trying to make it easier to see through the fog:

Nodes: <https://coin.dance/nodes>

Blocks (miners): <https://coin.dance/blocks>

Poli (companies): <https://coin.dance/poli>


---

