pull down to refresh
123 sats \ 6 replies \ @optimism 2h \ parent \ on: Supertestnet's gotcha: BIP16 also confiscated coins bitcoin
I saw the reference to Chris' statement. He's wrong. Your forkshitcoin can easily take less than 51% with it. All you need to do is consensus-enforce what any minority agrees on should be the real consensus and fuck right off.
Everything else is a branding discussion: Bitcoin don't give a shit if it is called Bitcoin or therealBitcoin or lukesEmpireCoin or whether there are 2, 3 or 4 of it all claiming to be Bitcoin. The only ones who care are the humans.
Do note that if you fork with less than a large majority of SHA256 compute out there, you may consider doing a consensus change to no longer be attackable by everyone that, probably due to your toxic lies and shitposting, really hates your guts.
That's what I find so important about Bitcoin: it is voluntary and that to me means it is not vulnerable to this "majority rules" bullshit. You can keep the rules you started with for as long as you like, even to the point where you have a consensus of 1 if need be.
(I know I'm exaggerating, but it's a pretty important aspect of I think)
The discussion I had on X last night ended up hinging on what "voluntary" means and whether any system that freezes other people's coins can still be called voluntary.
I maintained that it cannot. Because if a system is capable of arbitrarily freezing coins that the rules previously did not allow to be frozen, then no user of the system is able to operate without permission. Of course, this is why I don't have a good response to Super's point about the five utxos BIP16 froze.
Perhaps I should have used the word "permissionless" instead of voluntary. They are very closely intertwined.
I suppose the devil's advocate here is that the ability to fork is part of the mechanism that makes Bitcoin voluntary/permissionless...but I'm dissatisfied with this answer -- the forking mechanism may defend the permissionless nature of bitcoin, but there is no guarantee the thing you forked from remains permissionless.
reply
You can keep the rules you started with for as long as you like, even to the point where you have a consensus of 1 if need be.
I'd say consensus of 2, otherwise it has no function; but conceptually, yes. Ultimately, the thing isn't whether BIP-110 or any other confiscation BIP is good or bad. It's not about what the majority does either. It's about what you and your counterparties decide is good or bad.
Of course, this is why I don't have a good response to Super's point about the five utxos BIP16 froze.
The solution to this, like I hinted at elsewhere in this thread, is to not take blame for things you didn't have a part in. If super is against BIP16, then I wish everyone good luck with SuperBitcoin that reverts 14 years of transactions. I'm not really convinced that super himself was around back at that upgrade, I personally wasn't: every sat I own today, and every sat I ever transacted would cease to exist.
I suppose the devil's advocate here is that the ability to fork is part of the mechanism that makes Bitcoin voluntary/permissionless
Exactly. So you can do whatever you want, and so can I, and so can everyone. Freedom doesn't mean free of consequences though.
reply
that reverts 14 years of transactions
Does it have to revert all those blocks? If those outputs still exist as unspent outputs, wouldn't the split occur from the block that tries to spend them? In other words, isn't the fork latent?
If I use version 0.5 or something to create a transaction spending one of those utxos and I get miners running the same to mine it today at 928299, all the blocks between BIP16 activation and 928298 still sync for all of us, it's just that now we have a split because all the people who are running >0.6 see this new block (928299) as invalid and me and the miners who mined it do not?
(This is really just me trying to understand how this works; I agree with your points in your comment)
reply
Well, by the sentiment of the purity discussion you're referring to, you'd still be condoning 14 years of censorship! So no. If you're a confiscation maxi, fork off before p2sh activation and you're good. Otherwise you would be as evil as you are now. You'd be a collaborator with the devil that did that. lol.
Either way, yes. You can also just hard fork on block 928299. While you're at it, I think that you should also give Satoshi's coin to CSW in that block. He really wants them.