📅 Original date posted:2015-12-20
📝 Original message:On 2015-12-20 23:50, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> This is essentially the "nuclear option".
Remember this is proposed as an alternative to hardforks, which is also
a "nuclear option". Hardforks carry significant risks such as
permanently splitting Bitcoin into two chains if global consensus is
never reached. A (generalized) softfork avoids this problem.
> This could be achieved by adding the hash of an extended block into
> the coinbase but not requiring the coinbase to be the only
> transaction.
I think this can also be viewed as a generalized softfork if one so
chooses, e.g.
NewBlock := OldBlock ++ ExtendedBlock
f(NewBlock) = OldBlock
I do not think this is a bad idea but is more complex than my proposal,
e.g. users having to move coins between different tiers of blocks.
Under my proposal the Bitcoin works more or less the same except with a
larger limit.
--joe
joe2015 at openmailbox.org [ARCHIVE] /
npub1gw…hphxp
2023-06-07 17:47:16
in reply to nevent1q…h8ml
Author Public Key
npub1gwmm2y87243ku554j225754cr4ld7zmy5uajdkpmgd9cnvaey7cs4hphxpPublished at
2023-06-07 17:47:16Event JSON
{
"id": "6833ad1abd1dcda3b55b3983391fe71af58b54a94247a1fb820a71ee96f280ed",
"pubkey": "43b7b510fe55636e529592954f52b81d7edf0b64a73b26d83b434b89b3b927b1",
"created_at": 1686160036,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"cff63604c5ea2135194b6bb6cc24978162ba68b9dba72176ba103744f1094f89",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6b8b6d6260f95be87ca3927a775e3f5e0b3bf4778a4616d0c9a9db332fbedafe",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a99a6863dafee8b4470f1e1d441295e7068f103c4556867d7ba806680d3bef11"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-12-20\n📝 Original message:On 2015-12-20 23:50, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e This is essentially the \"nuclear option\".\n\nRemember this is proposed as an alternative to hardforks, which is also \na \"nuclear option\". Hardforks carry significant risks such as \npermanently splitting Bitcoin into two chains if global consensus is \nnever reached. A (generalized) softfork avoids this problem.\n\n\u003e This could be achieved by adding the hash of an extended block into\n\u003e the coinbase but not requiring the coinbase to be the only\n\u003e transaction.\n\nI think this can also be viewed as a generalized softfork if one so \nchooses, e.g.\n\n NewBlock := OldBlock ++ ExtendedBlock\n f(NewBlock) = OldBlock\n\nI do not think this is a bad idea but is more complex than my proposal, \ne.g. users having to move coins between different tiers of blocks. \nUnder my proposal the Bitcoin works more or less the same except with a \nlarger limit.\n\n--joe",
"sig": "75d11590ff4f4812d0543cc5fe6d2266f2d7b2d68193ea010564fa62ca3ea8d2b4757f6ea5dc7a699563d5a291a8a7469fe89a430e3c8ecfd64212dc74bddfe6"
}