@murch posted this on X earlier today:
Although @dathon_ohm hasn't responded yet, it is possibly the case that a node running the knots BIP 110 implementation may consider a p2a output with a one byte witness invalid while a non BIP 110 node will see it as valid. This does not seem to have been documented in BIP 110 documentation.
If you let “vibes and feels” overtake 18 years of hard engineering in distributed systems, you end up with a pathological mess like BIP110. Good luck with that.
The only redeeming quality in all of this is that the non-technical will fork off to nothing (just like with bcash and bsv), and Luke’s forktastic adventure will be over.
Here is dathon ohm's response:
source
BIP 433 does not require the witness stack to be empty. It only introduced a mempool policy.
It says:
It seems like something dathon could test fairly easily. Couldn't dathon run a knots node (with BIP 110 rules activated) and a bitcoin node on regtest and create a transaction like this and see if it is accepted by both nodes?
Also: i find it sad when people try to dismiss others by claiming they are trolling. "Trolling" and "disingenuous argument" and "not being sincere" have become the easiest way to ignore an argument.
Ah, I think I see now:
If someone else tries to implement BIP 110 based off what is specified in document BIP 110, they might miss this rule.
However, if the Knots activation client is the only implementation of a BIP 110 compliant node, it probably doesn't matter?
Exactly. It’s not a big issue, because nobody is trying to implement BIP 110. However, as is, either the soft fork proposal fails to comprehensively specify the necessary changes, or the current activation client is not specification compliant (or both).
And replies:
[source])(https://x.com/murchandamus/status/2079201368284553258)
source
That’s just false. The version is defined by the output script. It’s the first byte in native segwit outputs before the witness program push.
https://twiiit.com/dathon_ohm/status/2079235276497371152
https://twiiit.com/murchandamus/status/2079201368284553258
Further responses:
https://xcancel.com/dathon_ohm/status/2079234553332249079
Yes, BIP 110 elevates some policies to consensus rules. The issue is that one of the implemented consensus rules is not documented in the soft fork proposal.
https://twiiit.com/dathon_ohm/status/2079055254750998852
Late hour gotcha
#1528689
https://twiiit.com/murchandamus/status/2078978329299058784