pull down to refresh

102 sats \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined 3h \ on: Supertestnet's gotcha: BIP16 also confiscated coins bitcoin
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.
write
preview
192 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism 2h
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
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 2h
Got it
reply
90 sats \ 2 replies \ @Scoresby OP 2h
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
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 2h
I see. So, they could have easily exempted them at the time but now we’re stuck with this?
reply
69 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby OP 2h
I don't know about "easily" but I think it would have been easier.
reply