pull down to refresh

Why can’t these 5 utxos be addressed in an upgrade?

It seems like it should be easy enough give them the same exemption that all of the older utxos received.

Because accepting things that are currently rejected is a hard fork; whereas rejecting things that are currently accepted is - given you get high miner activation support - a soft fork.

reply
reply

This gets a little beyond my technical understanding, but at the very least, such an extended exemption is a hard fork: if anyone running current rules sees one of those utxos get included in a new block, they'll treat it as invalid.

This then comes with all the trouble of a hard fork: how do we make sure all people running old software don't get forked off?

reply

I see. So, they could have easily exempted them at the time but now we’re stuck with this?

reply

I don't know about "easily" but I think it would have been easier.

reply