pull down to refresh

Would regular Bitcoin transactions remain unaffected by BIP444-related reorgs?
270 sats \ 6 comments \ @ellipticKurve256k1 4 Nov bitcoin
I am still learning Bitcoin, and I’m trying to understand the practical impact of BIP444(in case it happens). From what I gather, BIP444 mainly restricts arbitrary data in scripts (like OP_RETURN or Ordinals, inscriptions), but doesn’t touch standard transaction formats such as P2PKH, P2WPKH, or Taproot(key path spending(?))
So heres my question: If a transaction doesn’t use OP_RETURN or any nonstandard script types, it should still be considered valid under both the old and new consensus rules. That means such “normal” transactions could exist in both mempools (of nodes that follow BIP444 and those that don’t) and wouldn’t cause reorg-related issues even in a mixed network.
Am I thinking about this correctly in that standard transactions are effectively immune to any BIP444-induced reorgs because they sit in the intersection of both rule sets with high enough fees?
write
preview
related posts
110 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 4 Nov
I reminder post I posted not long ago on SN about forks: #835285
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @047b99aa4d 4 Nov
@DarthCoin does this really apply to the BIP-444 soft fork though? Since it is two competing chains but not two competing coins isn't this different than the scenario you laid out? Listening to Bitcoin Mechanics recent video he explains that the Bitcoin Karen fork will just lay in wait until enough miners move over to work on this UASF chain then once it catches up the original chain will then experience a complete wipe out.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ellipticKurve256k1 OP 4 Nov
actually modify your Bitcoin client to accept the nonconformant transactions, the result will be that any Bitcoin you hold will be slowly (or perhaps not so slowly, depending on your use habits) replaced by worthless scam-Bitcoins
this fork maybe a scheme to ensure only regular transactions are propagated.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Filiprogrammer 22h
If a transaction doesn’t use OP_RETURN or any nonstandard script types, it should still be considered valid under both the old and new consensus rules. That means such “normal” transactions could exist in both mempools (of nodes that follow BIP444 and those that don’t) and wouldn’t cause reorg-related issues even in a mixed network. Am I thinking about this correctly in that standard transactions are effectively immune to any BIP444-induced reorgs because they sit in the intersection of both rule sets with high enough fees?
Yes, regular monetary transactions are unaffected by BIP444.
The soft fork would only limit the ways to put big chunks of data into transactions. (OP_RETURN, Inscriptions...)
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @ellipticKurve256k1 OP 15h
Thk. Then there should be no concern as long as people proceed with standard transactions
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Filiprogrammer 6h
Exactly. This would only impact spammers (NFTs, BRC-20 tokens...). It would not stop Runes (Shitcoins encoded in small OP_RETURNs) btw.
reply