pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @Filiprogrammer 3 Sep \ parent \ on: After the Core/Knots Hard Fork... Which version will you run and why? bitcoin
We can reduce OP_RETURN limits in a soft fork afaik.
This would cause a hard fork.
write
preview
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @k00b 3 Sep
Explain why please.
reply
222 sats \ 1 reply \ @Murch 3 Sep
Limiting OP_RETURN size would be a soft fork.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 3 Sep
Luke can also just make it a true chaintip fork, though. There's a nice integration point right here.
Bonus: if you do it without height threshold while implementing Luke's full definition of datacarrier as was recently explained here, you can even fork off those biblical texts someone put on the chain!
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 3 Sep
My understanding is that restrictions, a narrowing of something in consensus, can usually be implemented as a soft fork. But I'm now wondering if that just applies to opcodes.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 3 Sep
You can do it if it's miner enforced. Is Ocean going to enforce it with 10-15EH?
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Filiprogrammer 4 Sep
A block mined on the current consensus might not get accepted by nodes with the new OP_RETURN limit, thus causing a chain split. All miners would have to also implement that limit.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 OP 5 Sep
I think that's what I was alluding to... that a Knots fork (consensus change) limiting op_return would probably cause a chain split and a different blockchain/token.
It's the only way to be sure and 'get rid of' the spam.
reply