{"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:2015-10-05\n📝 Original message:Hi Jorge,\n\nI'm glad we seem to be reaching agreement that hard forks aren't so bad\nreally and can even have advantages. It seems the remaining area of\ndisagreement is this rollout specifically.\n\n\u003e a non-upgraded full node and an upgraded full will converge on what they\n\u003e see: \"the most-work valid chain\" will be the same for both.\n\u003e\nIndeed it will, but the point of fully verifying is to *not* converge with\nthe miner majority, if something goes wrong and they aren't following the\nsame rules as you. Defining \"work\" as \"converge with miner majority\" is\nfine for SPV wallets and a correct or at least reasonable definition. But\nnot for fully verifying nodes, where non-convergence is an explicit design\ngoal! That's the only thing that stops miners awarding themselves infinite\nfree money!\n\n\u003e Are you going to produce a bip65 hardfork alternative to try to convince\n\u003e people of its advantages over bip65 (it is not clear to me how you include\n\u003e a new script operand via hardfork)?\n\u003e\nNo, I'm focused on the block size issue right now. I don't think there's\nmuch point in improving the block chain protocol if most users are going to\nbe unable to use it. But the modification is simple, right? You just\nreplace this bit:\n\n  CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY redefines the existing NOP2 opcode\n\nwith this\n\n  CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY defines a new opcode (0xc0)\n\nand that's it. The section *upgrade and testing plan* only says TBD so that\npart doesn't even need to change at all, as it's not written yet.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151005/46cc6d47/attachment.html\u003e"}