jamesob on Nostr: Sure thing, good questions. ) Package relay and ephemeral anchors complement ...
Sure thing, good questions.
) Package relay and ephemeral anchors complement OP_VAULT, but don't replace it. They're about relay policy and how transactions can be replaced in the mempool, but they don't enforce any kind of new on-chain script rules. Sadly you just can't do vault stuff without allowing "tighter" rules on script validation with certain new opcodes, which is all a soft fork is.
2) UASF from a code standpoint is not really any harder than any activation method, but IMO it should be a last resort. The point of "traditional" activation methods like BIP8/9/speedtrial is not to ask miner approval, it is to help coordinate the upgrade with miners so that there isn't some portion of hashrate that might mine blocks that are invalid with the new rule set and cause a disrputive chainsplit. Whether or not this winds up being a UASF isn't something I would decide.
) Package relay and ephemeral anchors complement OP_VAULT, but don't replace it. They're about relay policy and how transactions can be replaced in the mempool, but they don't enforce any kind of new on-chain script rules. Sadly you just can't do vault stuff without allowing "tighter" rules on script validation with certain new opcodes, which is all a soft fork is.
2) UASF from a code standpoint is not really any harder than any activation method, but IMO it should be a last resort. The point of "traditional" activation methods like BIP8/9/speedtrial is not to ask miner approval, it is to help coordinate the upgrade with miners so that there isn't some portion of hashrate that might mine blocks that are invalid with the new rule set and cause a disrputive chainsplit. Whether or not this winds up being a UASF isn't something I would decide.