Published on: 2015-12-30T23:10:05+00:00
In the email thread, various types of forks are discussed, with a focus on firm hard forks that allow for format changes not achievable with soft-forks. The conversation includes links to discussions about auxiliary blocks, evil soft-forks, and forced soft-forks, as well as the use of extension blocks for a soft-fork block size increase. Previous conversations touch on topics such as generalized soft-forks, bip102 forced soft-forks, and extension blocks and sidechains.One of the key points of discussion is the implementation of segregated witness (SW), which is a soft-fork designed to be compatible both backwards and forwards, similar to P2SH. Soft forks are favored over hard forks due to their ability to avoid leaving behind a weak chain that could result in financial loss. However, the email acknowledges the existence of firm hard forks that can achieve the same purpose of format changes not possible with soft-forks.The concept of extension blocks is also explored in older conversations, alongside discussions about evil forks, evil soft-forks, and extension blocks. Segregated witness is mentioned as utilizing a similar idea. Additionally, the context delves into the concept of a "forced soft-fork," explaining that it is essentially the same as an "evil fork. "In relation to segregated witness, it is noted that although extension blocks demonstrate the possibility of a more general backwards and forwards compatible soft-fork, the implementation of segregated witness is simpler. The conversation also touches on the utilization of the strategy pattern to assist with code structure.Overall, the email thread provides a comprehensive exploration of various types of forks, including the distinction between soft forks and hard forks within the context of segregated witness implementation. The links shared throughout the discussion serve as valuable resources to further understand the concepts being discussed.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T17:21:31.603399+00:00