📅 Original date posted:2016-11-17
📝 Original message:On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 9:01:00 PM Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> So, conceptually, another way to deal with this is to hardcode a blockhash
> where we allow blocks in a chain ending with that blockhash to _not_ follow
> BIP65, up until that blockhash, and any blockchain without that blockhash
> must respect BIP65 for all blocks in the chain.
>
> This is a softfork: we've only added rules that made otherwise valid chains
> invalid, and at the same time we are still accepting large reorgs (albeit
> under stricter rules than before).
>
> I'd suggest we call this a exemption hash - we've exempted a particular
> blockchains from a soft-forked rule that we would otherwise enforce.
While this is technically a softfork, I think it may behave somewhat like a
hardfork if we're not careful. Particularly, is the chain up to the block
immediately before the checkpoint itself valid on its own, or does it simply
become retroactively valid when it hits that checkpoint?
P.S. Your PGP signature is invalid?
Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tf…rfq0n
2023-06-07 17:54:20
in reply to nevent1q…evud
Author Public Key
npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nPublished at
2023-06-07 17:54:20Event JSON
{
"id": "a625bffedb808502edc8daeb3cddde5a8ccd05e375f22d69ea560dd9e51c32c4",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686160460,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"50cde70d11f9c69cc787e52010ba0256918f920ad1f9811ad6566a1543ec1282",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"5f57a6ce4341e39bad69a2f043650a474c30caeefe095711d982872e1da2e122",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"82205f272f995d9be742779a3c19a2ae08522ca14824c3a3b01525fb5459161e"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-11-17\n📝 Original message:On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 9:01:00 PM Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e So, conceptually, another way to deal with this is to hardcode a blockhash\n\u003e where we allow blocks in a chain ending with that blockhash to _not_ follow\n\u003e BIP65, up until that blockhash, and any blockchain without that blockhash\n\u003e must respect BIP65 for all blocks in the chain.\n\u003e \n\u003e This is a softfork: we've only added rules that made otherwise valid chains\n\u003e invalid, and at the same time we are still accepting large reorgs (albeit\n\u003e under stricter rules than before).\n\u003e \n\u003e I'd suggest we call this a exemption hash - we've exempted a particular\n\u003e blockchains from a soft-forked rule that we would otherwise enforce.\n\nWhile this is technically a softfork, I think it may behave somewhat like a \nhardfork if we're not careful. Particularly, is the chain up to the block \nimmediately before the checkpoint itself valid on its own, or does it simply \nbecome retroactively valid when it hits that checkpoint?\n\nP.S. Your PGP signature is invalid?",
"sig": "c05e3c21bc3abf7d87c4ce1a1946b55490a627fbf2cf66ef44244d815b077dbc39e14da70caa6d2b9c7b19c1871263b8da7e64161a866248d97ce841b1f36290"
}