{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-10-05\n📝 Original message:- It is true that hard forks produce a much cleaner outcome, in terms of\nwell defined behavior across the entire network.\n\n- Replacing an opcode should not result in undefined behavior.  The\nnon-upgraded behavior is defined and deterministic.\n\n- IsStandard remains an assistant.  Miners may mine non-standard\ntransactions.\n\n- \"Hard forks require everyone to upgrade and soft forks don't\"   Doesn't\nrequire tons of explanation:  Non upgraded clients continue working on the\nnetwork even after the rules are upgraded.\n\nAll those corrections aside, I do think there has been too much hysteria\nsurrounding hard forks.  Hard forks, when done right, produce a much\ncleaner system for users.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOn Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Putting aside stupid arguments about who is older or who starting using\n\u003e the term SPV wallet first, let me try and make a better suggestion than\n\u003e what's in the BIP. How about the following:\n\u003e\n\u003e A new flag is introduced to Core, --scriptchecks=[all,standardonly,none].\n\u003e The default is all. When set to \"standardonly\", non-standard scripts are\n\u003e not checked but others are. This is similar to the behaviour during a soft\n\u003e fork. In \"none\" you have something a bit like SPV mode, but still\n\u003e calculating the UTXO set. This flag is simple and can be implemented in a\n\u003e few lines of code. Then an unused opcode is used for CLTV, so making it a\n\u003e hard fork.\n\u003e\n\u003e This has the following advantages:\n\u003e\n\u003e    - Nodes that want the pseudo-SPV behaviour of a soft fork can opt in\n\u003e    to it if they want it. This prioritises availability (in a sense) over\n\u003e    correctness.\n\u003e\n\u003e    - But otherwise, nodes will prioritise correctness by default, which\n\u003e    is how it should be. This isn't PHP where nonsensical code the interpreter\n\u003e    doesn't understand just does ...... something. This is financial software\n\u003e    where money is at risk. I feel very strongly about this: undefined\n\u003e    behaviour is fine *if you opted into getting it. *Otherwise it should\n\u003e    be avoided whenever possible.\n\u003e\n\u003e    - SPV wallets do the right thing by default.\n\u003e\n\u003e    - IsStandard doesn't silently become a part of the consensus rules.\n\u003e\n\u003e    - All other software gets simpler. It's not just SPV wallets. Block\n\u003e    explorers, for example, can just add a single line to their opcode map.\n\u003e    With a soft fork they have to implement the entire soft fork logic just to\n\u003e    figure out when an opcode transitioned from OP_NOP to CLTV and make sure\n\u003e    they render old scripts differently to new scripts. And they face tricky\n\u003e    questions - do they render an opcode as a NOP if the miner who built it was\n\u003e    un-upgraded, or do they calculate the flag day and change all of them after\n\u003e    that? It's just an explosion of complexity.\n\u003e\n\u003e Many people by now have accepted that hard forks are simpler, conceptually\n\u003e cleaner, and prioritise correctness of results over availability of\n\u003e results. I think these arguments are strong.\n\u003e\n\u003e So let me try addressing the counter-arguments one more time:\n\u003e\n\u003e    - Hard forks require everyone to upgrade and soft forks don't. I still\n\u003e    feel this one has never actually been explained. There is no difference to\n\u003e    the level of support required to trigger the change. With the suggestion\n\u003e    above, if someone can't or won't upgrade their full node but can no longer\n\u003e    verify the change, they can simply restart with -scriptchecks=standardonly\n\u003e    and get the soft fork behaviour. Or they can upgrade and get their old\n\u003e    security level back.\n\u003e\n\u003e    - Hard forks are somehow bad or immoral or can lead to \"schisms\". This\n\u003e    is just saying, if we hold a vote, the people who lose the vote might try\n\u003e    starting a civil war and refuse to accept the change. That's not a reason\n\u003e    to not hold votes.\n\u003e\n\u003e    But at any rate, they can do that with soft forks too: just decide\n\u003e    that any output that contains OP_CLTV doesn't make it into the UTXO set.\n\u003e    Eventually coins that trace back to such an output will become unusable in\n\u003e    the section of the economy that decided to pick a fight.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151005/6fe4130c/attachment.html\u003e"}