pull down to refresh

1124 sats \ 2 replies \ @d01abcb3eb 15h \ on: BIP 444: Reduced Data Temporary Softfork bitcoin
Thanks, @Scoresby! :)
I think a couple of things raises questions, in addition to the BIP giving the impression of being hastily written and not thought through. Like:
Does this cause a chain split?
Generally, softforks do not cause chain splits. However, since we are rejecting an already-mined block proposal, this softfork does indeed cause a chain split. In fact, that is an important part of its purpose: to keep the illegal content storage in block out of Bitcoin.
To achieve this, the softfork must activate retroactively, invalidating that block and all its descendants. The prior segment of the blockchain including this block will eventually (hopefully quickly) be discarded entirely, as the network adopts the softfork proposed herein.
I also wonder about the implications of future developments. Like, say a node runs this BIP, and we get a new versions of tapleaf or segwit. What will happen to these nodes assuming they do not upgrade the node software they are running?
Disclosure: I am unfortunately not funded by any side of the spam "war", and so am just trying to understand what to do to avoid shooting myself in the foot.
write
preview
157 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 1h
I also wonder about the implications of future developments. Like, say a node runs this BIP, and we get a new versions of tapleaf or segwit. What will happen to these nodes assuming they do not upgrade the node software they are running?
I think you got this the wrong way around. You meant to ask: what happens to those people that activate this. We will call them shitcoiners.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 13h
Very good questions I unfortunately cannot answer.
Also thank you for originally sharing the link! Very sorry that it went under, not sure why. For me, this is easily the most important link in a long time about Knots vs Core.
Oh and welcome!
reply