Author: Ryan Grant 2017-04-08 04:48:34
Published on: 2017-04-08T04:48:34+00:00
In an email exchange between two individuals, praxeology_guy challenged a claim that a misconfiguration would result in a stop chain. The respondent clarified that the statement was only true for BIP9 soft forks. They went on to explain that if rule changes are made at different times from the chain with the most work, there could be subjective hardfork-ness. This would occur when miners create blocks that the economic majority accepts despite having less restrictive rules than other chains. The respondents stated that the segwit soft fork narrows the definition of a nonstandard transaction and that any block with a transaction violating cleanstack on a non-segwit chain would likely be malicious. However, they acknowledged that some future forks might restrict more common things. In response to an idea about notifying users when a newly activated soft fork rule caused a block to be rejected, the respondent suggested that clients could make these decisions themselves.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T23:49:24.865726+00:00