Author: Michael Ruddy 2015-08-02 10:53:20
Published on: 2015-08-02T10:53:20+00:00
The sender of the message praises the "hardfork bit" proposal, which addresses valid concerns of re-org when a small/near/fluctuating majority or less of mining power is supported. The sender believes that the "economic majority" argument may be sufficient on its own, however, having this proposal adds support to economic actors and makes it easier for them to switch if/when they choose. The sender requests the latest version of the proposal to collaborate on specific text.In response, the receiver discusses the possibility of multiple hardforks sharing the same flag block and how the coinbase message can preclude any potential ambiguity and provide additional information to the warning system of non-upgrading nodes. The receiver also suggests that collaboration can prevent the need for a coinbase message if there won't be any other hardfork proposals at the same time. The receiver then explains why the "version 0" idea is not compatible with the version bits voting system and introduces the hardfork bit BIP as an alternative.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T03:50:19.145136+00:00