|
Jorge Timón
@
timoncc
|
|
Alternative monetary systems, complementary currencies, Carl #Menger - #Bitcoin, E.C. #Riegel - #MutualCredit, #SilvioGesell - #Freicoin
|
|
|
8.442
Tweet
|
1.769
Mengikuti
|
3.752
Pengikut
|
| Tweet |
|
|
Jorge Timón
@timoncc
|
1 j |
|
Alright, I'll take a look. I'm actually not sure what I think about this. Using height, of course, that's actually what I wanted for bip9 from the beginning but I wad kind of alone with that opinion at the time.
|
||
|
||
|
|
Jorge Timón
@timoncc
|
1 j |
|
Of course they can. If miners create segwit invalid blocks now, most nodes will reject them but pre-segwit nodes will accept them. I know you're going to say that's miners doing a hf but what if it's a miner that never upgraded?
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Jorge Timón
@timoncc
|
1 j |
|
Then biy another dictionary. A softfork doesn't mean non upgraded nodes don't have any risk. It means they won't be forked off vy abl9ck that doesn't follow the old rules.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Jorge Timón
@timoncc
|
1 j |
|
If non upgraded miners produce invalid blocks according to the new rules, they will be rejected. Perhaps read bip99 for basic definitions like softfork and hardfork.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Jorge Timón
@timoncc
|
1 j |
|
Nothing, because it was a sf.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Jorge Timón
@timoncc
|
1 j |
|
Sorry, I don't understand the question.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Jorge Timón
@timoncc
|
1 j |
|
Lol, I had you muted. I didn't twist the meaning you did. I encourage people to read the whole paragraph and judge by themselves who is lying. You think too little of your readers if you think they will accept that that it is me and not you who is lying.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Jorge Timón
@timoncc
|
1 j |
|
Segwit is a sfbecause it changes the rules only by making them more strict, not relaxing them in any way.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Jorge Timón
@timoncc
|
1 j |
|
The best definition of a hf is "a change in the consensus rules that relax them somehow".
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Jorge Timón
@timoncc
|
2 j |
|
Well, as said in bip99 I still think it's not so black and white, one could consider it a hf or not. But I'm more than fine with both calling it a hf or not.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Jorge Timón
@timoncc
|
2 j |
|
Oh, I see. What about a modified bip8 with mandatory signaling at the end?
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Jorge Timón
@timoncc
|
2 j |
|
If that 85% figure is for sw, I think the percentage of nodes that validate sw is much higher. "Instantly" is really just before activation, that could be as consetvative as "withtin the next 5 years".
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Jorge Timón
@timoncc
|
10 j |
|
softforks change the rules too and users are expected to upgrade, just not necessarily before activation like with hfs.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Jorge Timón
@timoncc
|
10 j |
|
actually bip99 also discusses this as a not so back and white thing where different definitons ca? lead to different interpretations of that
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Jorge Timón
@timoncc
|
10 j |
|
|
||
|
|
Jorge Timón
@timoncc
|
10 j |
|
Can't you hust change some bdb settings on older nodes and sync with the current chain just fine (although slowly)? That was my understanding too.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Jorge Timón
@timoncc
|
10 j |
|
So you would simply use a date for hfs? What do you mean by improving that process? For bip148... in retrospective, wouldn't it have been simpler that bip141 used bip8 instead of bip9?
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Jorge Timón
@timoncc
|
10 j |
|
The consensus rules are what defines "valid" in your sentence and a hf changes that. I don't think it is an existential thread as explained in bip99. Either it is uncontroversial and everything is fine or it is controversial (like bcash) and a new currency is created.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Jorge Timón
@timoncc
|
10 j |
|
How so? I thought wverybosy wamted to use bip8 instead of bip9 now. At least that's what I want. What do you want for both next sf or hf?
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Jorge Timón
@timoncc
|
10 j |
|
Not sure what you have in mind. I was assuming the process for the next sf or hf would basically be bip8 (plus using the hf bit on activation)...
|
||
|
|
||