pull down to refresh
102 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism 2h \ on: Supertestnet's gotcha: BIP16 also confiscated coins bitcoin
I'm with nvk on this one too. And super is right to call BIP16 out, but my conclusion instead is: BIP16 was a bad upgrade.
And you know what? This "activation" is what people use as an example to point out that UASFs are good. So super just made the point against UASF. Thanks super, I agree: UASF is a nuclear warhead best not used. Its function is a deterrent.
PS: I just opened that tweet threat (using the bot link) and never before have I felt myself so estranged from Bitcoin Twitter. I'm happy I'm not there. I'm also very unhappy that this is the discourse now.
Yes, I unfortunately let myself get pulled into a twitter discussion last night. I regret it.
Super posted his BIP16 point on nostr as well, so probably I should have linked to that one, but it didn't have some of the replies I wanted to reference.
I'm sure there were reasons, but I guess I'm surprised that the BIP authors didn't just let all blocks prior to BIP 16 activation get validated with pre-BIP 16 rules. As always there is so much about Bitcoin I need to learn.
reply
I unfortunately let myself get pulled into a twitter discussion last night. I regret it.
I saw the reference to Chris' statement. He's wrong. Your forkshitcoin can easily take less than 51% with it. All you need to do is consensus-enforce what any minority agrees on should be the real consensus and fuck right off.
Everything else is a branding discussion: Bitcoin don't give a shit if it is called Bitcoin or therealBitcoin or lukesEmpireCoin or whether there are 2, 3 or 4 of it all claiming to be Bitcoin. The only ones who care are the humans.
Do note that if you fork with less than a large majority of SHA256 compute out there, you may consider doing a consensus change to no longer be attackable by everyone that, probably due to your toxic lies and shitposting, really hates your guts.
reply
So I'm not 100% sure, but I think that the first implementation of
IsSuperMajority() for MASF was done for BIP-30 (0.7) and everything before that wasn't really decentrally "activated". I think that this is when Gavin first proposed code for it, but maybe I've missed something. This was the "novel" mechanism when I started looking deeper into Bitcoin code.I think that BIPs 30, 66 and 65 were activated using this, then from 112/113 (CSV) onward, versionbits were the primary activation indicator instead of hard version numbers.
reply