pull down to refresh
227 sats \ 5 replies \ @Murch 11 Jun \ parent \ on: Influencers out in Storm: Is *This* the Hill to Die On? bitcoin
So far their reaction to the evidence has been to continue claiming that filters work. I have not seen anyone actually propose a fork over this, but I doubt that a hard fork would be necessary. Forbidding things only takes a soft fork.
100% Knots would be insufficient if the people that want bare multisig directly hand them to miners who include them in blocks.
but I doubt that a hard fork would be necessary. Forbidding things only takes a soft fork. So if knots were to forbid a transaction with a Witness beyond a certain size... And Core didn't forbid such a witness (didn't change from current rules...)
Then knots would find a given block invalid right? And Core wouldn't?
So it would be a chain split???
reply
reply
Could you explain this better? Take the L?
reply
If Knots were to introduce soft fork rules that forbid some types of data transactions at the consensus level, they would probably have some method for activating this soft fork. If the activation fails to get broad support, they would be forced to decide to either create a minority fork that enforces the new consensus rules, or to "take the loss" and forego enforcing the new rules.
reply
Listening to these people (without generalizing) on the podcast circuit, much less Twitter... I think they would be fanatical and hard-headed. In other words create a 'minority fork' that they don't actually believe is the minority fork.
To them it's the One True. So they would stick with it at least in the short term (that's what the influencers would say to do).
reply