{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2013-10-30\n📝 Original message:\u003e But if you are getting soft-forked recent versions of the reference\n\u003e implementation WILL alert you; see this code in main.cpp:\n\u003e\n\nPerhaps I'm confused about how we're using the term soft fork. My\nunderstanding is that this is where a new upgrade is designed to look valid\nto old nodes, and if you don't upgrade you rely on the miner majority to\nget you \"back on track\". For instance, P2SH was done this way - old nodes\nthat didn't upgrade during that transition believed all spends of P2SH\noutputs were valid, even those spending someone elses coins.\n\nIn this case, the code you cite won't do anything because your client will\nnever reject a block during a soft-forking upgrade, even if it does\nsomething that's supposed to be invalid or nonsensical.\n\nIf a new block version changes the serialization format or script language\nor SIGHASH rules such that old clients reject the block, then they will end\nup on a hard fork and the alerting code will trigger, which is correct and\nas it should be.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131030/e37ddff8/attachment.html\u003e"}