pull down to refresh

Murch replied to me the other day about this and what I learned is that fork type describes not the outcome but the factual code change: "RDTS changed the rules in a compatible manner", which apparently makes this a soft fork even when it fails. It just has a high potential for a permanent chaintip split if it fails but doesn't get abandoned.

I don't like this ambiguity where you can name something one way but there is a high risk of the opposite outcome... but whatevs. Namers be naming.

This fork intent is so complicated that will die in the first hours.
Will be reminded as the most lame fork in Bitcoin history.

@remindme in 1 year

reply
103 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism 10 Aug

REMINDER!!! Didn't take a year

reply

LOL darth was right again

reply
234 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism 27 Jul

@remindme in 14 days

to remind Darth that this won't take a year

reply
reply