Author: Russell O'Connor 2019-03-13 01:34:21
Published on: 2019-03-13T01:34:21+00:00
In this email exchange, Russell O'Connor and Matt Corallo are discussing the possibility of a soft-fork to remove certain aspects of the Bitcoin protocol that are deemed insecure or redundant. O'Connor suggests that some aspects, such as nSequence numbers, NOP1-NOP10, and extra sighash types could be classified as redundant and removed via a soft-fork. However, Corallo argues that even carve-outs for OP_NOP may not be sufficient in some cases, as pre-signed transactions using nSequence to tag different categories could become unrealistically spendable. Corallo believes that soft forks are meant to invalidate otherwise-unused bits of the protocol, similar to how OP_NOPs are used. While the sighash bits are less likely candidates for soft-forking, Corallo sees no issue with removing them if they are redundant and not in use. O'Connor disagrees, stating that these bits are essentially unsuitable for soft-forking within legacy Script and that random bits inserted into locked-for-more-than-a-year transactions are not sufficient reason to not soft-fork something out. He cites the lack of precedent for soft-forking out working transactions that send funds from securely held UTXOs to securely held UTXOs (excluding those secured by Scripts using the reserved OP_NOP1-OP_NOP10). O'Connor believes that such a soft-fork would cross a line that should not be crossed unless the security of the Bitcoin protocol itself was under existential threat. Corallo responds by suggesting that perhaps the reason these bits are not seen in use on the blockchain is that users trying to use them are caught up in the fact that they are not being relayed by default, violating SCRIPT_VERIFY_STRICTENC, and having difficulty redeeming them. He argues that it is not acceptable to first make transactions non-standard and then use the fact that they are not being used to justify a soft-fork. O'Connor counters that he knows of users who have their funds tied up due to other changes in Bitcoin Core's default relay policy and believes that permanently destroying their funds before they have a chance to get their transactions mined would be unfair. Overall, the email exchange highlights the debate around whether certain aspects of the Bitcoin protocol should be removed via soft-fork and the potential consequences of doing so.
Updated on: 2023-06-13T17:34:18.523088+00:00