📅 Original date posted:2015-09-28
📝 Original message:>
> Go ahead and object to soft forks...but at least try not to make arguments
> based on changing the definitions of terms we all generally agree upon.
>
I don't intend to do that, and I don't think I am - I know what the
difference between a soft and hard fork is and am not trying to confuse or
blur the two.
To reiterate: this current BIP implements a soft fork. I am not debating
that. I am saying it should use a hard fork instead. This will ensure no
repeat of the P2SH case where invalid blocks were being found for weeks (or
was it months?) after the new rules kicked in, thus exposing SPV wallets
and old nodes to unnecessary risk for no benefit.
Additionally, I am making it clear that there's no consensus for rolling
out the new opcode in this way. As you say, the mechanism has issues. If
you read the comments when I wrote my article, you can see that others
share the same concerns:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3griiv/on_consensus_and_forks_by_mike_hearn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150928/a7bdf845/attachment-0001.html>;
Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] /
npub17t…4qgyd
2023-06-07 17:41:28
in reply to nevent1q…pvjm
Author Public Key
npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydPublished at
2023-06-07 17:41:28Event JSON
{
"id": "8c7ac3cb2722d8256ebc659e1536ecd8a77a068d4d20f8d3dbdc265dcee07da3",
"pubkey": "f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2",
"created_at": 1686159688,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f5bb1bf208994917ac3ec4154383520df2a8573df815c54d28bae4e41ef024c8",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"20413ce706743e2a8ad1db5d5fef94a93082f704c1a76a5f207f024c8739900b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"e899768d254f3537af7e26455968583632d0ab0bd4c780445eacfa087ac80d8f"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-09-28\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e Go ahead and object to soft forks...but at least try not to make arguments\n\u003e based on changing the definitions of terms we all generally agree upon.\n\u003e\n\nI don't intend to do that, and I don't think I am - I know what the\ndifference between a soft and hard fork is and am not trying to confuse or\nblur the two.\n\nTo reiterate: this current BIP implements a soft fork. I am not debating\nthat. I am saying it should use a hard fork instead. This will ensure no\nrepeat of the P2SH case where invalid blocks were being found for weeks (or\nwas it months?) after the new rules kicked in, thus exposing SPV wallets\nand old nodes to unnecessary risk for no benefit.\n\nAdditionally, I am making it clear that there's no consensus for rolling\nout the new opcode in this way. As you say, the mechanism has issues. If\nyou read the comments when I wrote my article, you can see that others\nshare the same concerns:\n\nhttps://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3griiv/on_consensus_and_forks_by_mike_hearn\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150928/a7bdf845/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "e63b1bf7c857879a701a6c6f68386efba6660dc5c1eab5e8bf33d25b12f2f95b2c28f311a8df6af6c2182f0521d5e492c6d8d121fcafaf18b4f08e139f31ea85"
}