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).

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?

Scoresby

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.

bitcoin

Feb update to RDTS may have added undocumented consensus rule change

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.