rich1.0npub17rld56k4365lfphyd8u8kwuejey5xcazdxptserx03wc4jc9g24stx9l2hhttps://nostr.ae/npub17rld56k4365lfphyd8u8kwuejey5xcazdxptserx03wc4jc9g24stx9l2hnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2021-02-22 📝 Original message:On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 12:48:00PM -0500, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote: > It was pointed out to me that this discussion is largely moot as the > software complexity for Bitcoin Core to ship an option like this is likely > not practical/what people would wish to see. > Bitcoin Core does not have infrastructure to handle switching consensus > rules with the same datadir - after running with uasf=true for some time, > valid blocks will be marked as invalid, I don't think this is true? With the current proposed bip8 code, lockinontimeout=true will cause headers to be marked as invalid, and won't process the block further. If a node running lockinontimeout=true accepts the header, then it will apply the same consensus rules as a lockinontimeout=false node. I don't think an invalid header will be added to the block index at all, so a node restart should always cleanly allow it to be reconsidered. The test case in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19573/commits/bd8517135fc839c3332fea4d9c8373b94c8c9de8 tests that a node that had rejected a chain due to lockinontimeout=true will reorg to that chain after being restarted as a byproduct of the way it tests different cases (the nodes set a new startheight, but retain their lockinontimeout settings). (I think with the current bip8 code, if you switch from lockinontimeout=false to lockinontimeout=true and the tip of the current most work chain is after the timeoutheight and did not lockin, then you will continue following that chain until a taproot-invalid transaction is inclued, rather than immediately reorging to a shorter chain that complies with the lockinontimeout=true rules) Cheers, aj