Author: eric at voskuil.org 2021-03-08 14:13:44
Published on: 2021-03-08T14:13:44+00:00
There is a widespread misperception that soft forks are always backward compatible and will not cause a chain split without hash power enforcement. This has been reinforced by the wording in past proposals, which said that older software would continue to operate without modification. However, hash power enforcement is required for a soft fork to avoid a chain split. Devs have also claimed that BIP16 was not signaled by supermajority hash power before it was activated, but all active soft forks since then have been activated by supermajority hash power signaling. The conflict over activation should not be about who gets to decide the rules, but that is what it has become.The reason for BIP8 is to codify activation without hash power support, but some devs do not want to be responsible for shipping code to people who are misinformed about its behavior and potentially causing a chain split. It is not clear why one would side with exchanges over miners given that miners are able to prevent a chain split. HODLer nodes are non-economic, and the supposed giant overwhelmingly supports Taproot. This proposal solves nothing and adds to the noise, so some people against Taproot should want code to forbid its activation rather than limiting themselves to supporting bip9/bip8(false) and hoping it does not get activated.
Updated on: 2023-06-14T18:43:30.225589+00:00