pull down to refresh

144 sats \ 5 replies \ @optimism 2h \ parent \ on: Supertestnet's gotcha: BIP16 also confiscated coins bitcoin
it's not merely a case of something that happened in the past. You are actively enforcing the BIP 16 confiscation with your node if you run anything later than v 0.6 -- it's not merely a case of something that happened in the past.
Have to call this out because I think that this is false, sorry. If you weren't an economic participant at the time of BIP16, there is nothing you can do now because consensus enforces it. Any coin received after BIP16 activation will be reversed if you want to challenge BIP16, so you have no choice really; if you allow these to be spent, you're the one hard forking. These coins are lost. Did anyone complain?
write
preview
100 sats \ 4 replies \ @Scoresby OP 2h
you make a good point. I want to agree, but I'm nervous because it feels like an easy out.
Why isn't it the case that we ought to put up with the nightmare that is a hard fork in order to fix this problem?
As I was writing this, @rblb wrote a pretty good reply that probably suffices to put my argument down. #1350201
reply
102 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism 1h
Why isn't it the case that we ought to put up with the nightmare that is a hard fork in order to fix this problem?
Because it's anyonecanspend. No one can prove ownership. If it weren't and there was an actual victim, it's cheaper to raise 4.4M sats.
reply
121 sats \ 2 replies \ @Scoresby OP 1h
This is Vojtěch's response, as well. It looks like him and Super have continued to discuss.
As of an hour ago, this is where Vojtěch was:
I'm most definitely okay with a soft fork like P2SH confiscating a dollar of value as collateral damage, I just don't think confiscation itself should be the goal.
I think this is reasonable, but I want to take it further: I want to have the strong stance embodied by nvk at the top of my OP: utxos are sacred, don't fucking take them from anyone.
reply
102 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 1h
I'm most definitely okay with a soft fork like P2SH confiscating a dollar of value as collateral damage, I just don't think confiscation itself should be the goal.
I'm not fully okay with this, much like you, but I am sensitive to the point that spending to explicitly unimplemented opcodes to do anyonecanspend, is an appeal to undefined behavior being static. That means no more soft forks ever. So to protect Bitcoin, in case we are confronted with something that absolutely requires a softfork, if you want to donate coin, spend to OP_TRUE. Any undefined behavior is undefined.
If inscriptions were using undefined opcodes, witness programs or other things to put data on the chain, then I'd be okay with dropping support for these. But since they are not, it's just not feasible to prevent past usage.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 1h
https://twiiit.com/vostrnad/status/2001213587541430526
reply