I understand some defaults have been changed in Bitcoin Core 30 related to OP_RETURN and some people decided to run forks of it because of that. Is it not possible for those parameters to be set back to their values as they were in Bitcoin Core 29? If yes, then is it not more secure to stick to Bitcoin Core which is better reviewed and still have it operate as it did before the version 30 release?
pull down to refresh
123 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 4h
If you don't know what are you doing, why are you still upgrading to v30 ? Just stick with what you have. Nothing will change. Nothing.
What really matters: #1222299
reply
33 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xbitcoiner 3h
I’ve wondered about that too, and I think you’re right. Kinda sucks there’s no detailed list on GitHub about the changes in Bitcoin Core 30.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 1h
👀 v30.0 Release Notes Draft
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/v30.0-Release-Notes-Draft
reply
33 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby 3h
The argument seems to be more about what the defaults are and whether datacarriersize is deprecated, but your point is a good one.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 2h
I only found out today that they're thinking about removing the datacarriersize option in a future version. Honestly, that makes no sense to me. Changing the default? Fine, that’s not a big deal. But not letting people set it however they want? That’s just not okay.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @anon 2h
Thanks, that makes sense. So running Bitcoin Core 30 with -datacarriersize=80 in the config makes it behave like 29.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 1h
👀 #1222543
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 1h
So that would be 83:
from https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/127895/implications-of-op-return-changes-in-upcoming-bitcoin-core-version-30-0/127903#127903
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 1h
Yeah, that’s how I see it too, but I’m no expert on this stuff. Take a look at the official draft for version 30. #1222557
reply