Activate BIP-300 and collect fee revenue from every payment on Earth.
related posts
225 sats \ 1 reply \ @nerd2ninja 26 Jun
Zapping because you brought it to our attention, not because I like it (I don't like it)
A miner activated soft fork without Core (or economic node runner) support is a bold move.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rsync25 OP 27 Jun
I agree. When I saw this I thought also same thing. This is a bad move.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @SatsMate 27 Jun
Who would be in support of this other than the miners???
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @saunter 27 Jun
it's directed to miners
reply
5 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheBTCManual 27 Jun
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @pakovm 27 Jun
I understand many of the things Paul says in this document, in fact I support many of said ideas (politization of the process, Luke being a nutjob, bitcoiners of 2024 being completely retarded, doing nothing is the worse course of action, trust isn't a scaling solution), but I have to ask, is this really the right move? I'm not sure I like this despite being ideologically aligned with it.
If anyone more knowledgeable than me can guide me through the technical ACTUAL risks I',d be grateful.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @CruncherDefi 27 Jun
It seems that there are serious mistakes in the 'old-way / new-way' comparison.
Yeah, except now soft-fork-specific UTXOs are claimable by everyone onchain. It's disabled on the technical layer of protocol, but it wreaks havoc on social/economic layer of protocol.
Why would you exclude reorgs? Reorg is the biggest issue and blocker when it comes to soft forks. Basically reorgs makes it so the 'new-way activation' is not that different from the 'old-way activation' w.r.t risks.
You might use the new OPCODE from your softfork. But if most economic participants won't use your soft-fork someone will claim your UTXOs next block and you screaming "This is consesus invalid! Give back my coins" by your local Activator won't make a difference.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @pakovm 27 Jun
Care to explain how an UTXO can become claimable under such circunstances?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @CruncherDefi 27 Jun
In order to have soft-fork any changes must be backward compatible with old-code running nodes.
So how could you possibly add new features while keeping backward compatibility? You make it so old nodes see the new soft-fork UTXOs as "anyone can spend", while soft-fork-aware nodes can understand new data and enforce narrower ruleset on those UTXOs.
If miners/nodes accepted the softfork all new blocks will follow the new ruleset, but old-codebase nodes will still work fine unaware of new rules thinking those are just "anyone can spend" UTXOs.
reply