pull down to refresh

125 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 7 Jul \ parent \ on: On the Lack of Replay Protection bitcoin bitcoin_beginners

Alright, so what do we call the state of having 2 chain tips where the UASF side is a persistent minority chain? Because that scenario isn't covered in this terminology. Bitcoin Unlimited retroactively decided to do the equivalent of lot=true after their MASF failed, which is the closest comparison we have here, except now it is coded in. (iirc we called the BU decision a hard fork, but whatevs)

So, if the majority of all economic actors is going to enforce the UASF, to which we have no indication with just a few weeks left, fine. But what will we end up with if that too[1] fails? It's not a softfork if I need to run a second client to see the minority chaintip.

  1. assuming that with 0.77% signal for bit 4, the MASF component will fail. ↩

write
compose
81 sats \ 1 reply \ @Murch OP 7 Jul

I'd call it a permanent chain-split caused by a soft fork with minority hashrate support. The Bitcoin rules would be the hard fork to RDTS, but RDTS changed the rules in a compatible manner and Bitcoin didn't, so calling it a hard fork would be weird.

Hard/soft fork refers to the type of rule change. Chain split describes the outcome.

I wrote as much a long while about it, so that distinction seems to be quite old: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/30821

reply
125 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 7 Jul

Thanks, that makes sense.

reply