pull down to refresh
202 sats \ 3 replies \ @south_korea_ln 9h \ on: BIP 444: Reduced Data Temporary Softfork bitcoin
I wonder how this will affect potential double spends. One could publish some child porn at the same time of paying for a service and then activate this invalidation mechanism to recover the funds. How many descendants before a block is considered irreversible? Who decides what is considered not to Luke's liking? There will be edge cases that one does not think about now. There are always edge cases.
Putting aside my own position on this debate, this all seems poorly thought out.
Yeah, the potential double-spending issue is interesting. But so is the apparent clumsiness of the proposal - and the path that has lead here. Whatever game theoretic play the spam team is playing it's obviously working.
reply
would you be willing to hazard a guess as to what the goal of a soft fork like this is?
reply
Not really. From my vantage point there seems to be nothing positive in it for the "Knots-side". I think, to hazard a guess one would need to have some understanding of the target audiences here - for which I have none... To me it simply does not make much sense. Perhaps needless to say, I'm impressed by neither the new relaying defaults nor core's ability to make it harder to spam the blockchain.
reply