Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-10-30 📝 Original message:> But if you are getting ...
📅 Original date posted:2013-10-30
📝 Original message:> But if you are getting soft-forked recent versions of the reference
> implementation WILL alert you; see this code in main.cpp:
>
Perhaps I'm confused about how we're using the term soft fork. My
understanding is that this is where a new upgrade is designed to look valid
to old nodes, and if you don't upgrade you rely on the miner majority to
get you "back on track". For instance, P2SH was done this way - old nodes
that didn't upgrade during that transition believed all spends of P2SH
outputs were valid, even those spending someone elses coins.
In this case, the code you cite won't do anything because your client will
never reject a block during a soft-forking upgrade, even if it does
something that's supposed to be invalid or nonsensical.
If a new block version changes the serialization format or script language
or SIGHASH rules such that old clients reject the block, then they will end
up on a hard fork and the alerting code will trigger, which is correct and
as it should be.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131030/e37ddff8/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:> But if you are getting soft-forked recent versions of the reference
> implementation WILL alert you; see this code in main.cpp:
>
Perhaps I'm confused about how we're using the term soft fork. My
understanding is that this is where a new upgrade is designed to look valid
to old nodes, and if you don't upgrade you rely on the miner majority to
get you "back on track". For instance, P2SH was done this way - old nodes
that didn't upgrade during that transition believed all spends of P2SH
outputs were valid, even those spending someone elses coins.
In this case, the code you cite won't do anything because your client will
never reject a block during a soft-forking upgrade, even if it does
something that's supposed to be invalid or nonsensical.
If a new block version changes the serialization format or script language
or SIGHASH rules such that old clients reject the block, then they will end
up on a hard fork and the alerting code will trigger, which is correct and
as it should be.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131030/e37ddff8/attachment.html>;