pull down to refresh
151 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b OP 13 Dec \ parent \ on: Rationale re: covenants support wiki by Paul Sztorc bitcoin
I wonder if there's a way to prevent reduce the "gamble" taken without the heavy hand of UASF, like an upgraded wallet that takes this temporary split into consideration by providing multiple versions of a spend that's compatible with each chaintip so no matter which chain wins the economic outcome is as similar as possible.
Then again mining pools are so centralized, you'd just need to convince two or three of The Big 4 to support the fork. Are any of the pool operators other than Ocean even participating in fork discussions?
like an upgraded wallet that takes this temporary split into consideration by providing multiple versions of a spend that's compatible with each chaintip so no matter which chain wins the economic outcome is as similar as possible.
But that means the recipient also needs to accept coins on both chains, right? If that's not the case, I think there is some problem with following transactions and their respective recipients.
But I am not sure I'll understand what I was thinking when I initially replied before the edit timer runs out.
I wish I spent more time thinking before replying, lol
reply
Yep. You'd want this split consensus to be acceptable along the entire upstream spend path (ie you'd need this kind of weird meta-consensus along the spend path). It's a pretty silly idea.
The ideal afaict would be that soft forks don't even need a majority of miners. I'm just sharing dumb ideas about how that might be achieved. I'd be curious if anyone has done any research to that effect.
reply