Author: Jorge Timón 2022-03-17 12:08:25
Published on: 2022-03-17T12:08:25+00:00
In a Bitcoin developer mailing list, Russell O'Connor expressed his desire to use BIP+LOT=true instead of Speedy Trial and suggested that Luke had written code to resist BIP8+LOT=true. He further explained that if the hypothetical group of users required such a fork, he was willing to write the code himself. O'Connor provided an example scenario where someone proposes a weight size limit increase by an extension block softfork or a final version of the covenants proposal with a backdoor in it. He asked for the activation method (Speedy Trial or BIP8+LOT=true) that would be preferable in such cases. Jorge Timón suggested not upgrading a node if a user opposed a softfork, but O'Connor disagreed, saying that not upgrading wouldn't prevent the softfork from being activated on the chain. He also added that even if a user didn't use the new features directly, a softfork could affect them indirectly. O'Connor noted that there is no effective difference between developers releasing a malicious soft-fork and miners releasing a malicious version themselves. He argued that without the economic majority enforcing their set of rules, the miner cartel risks falling apart from the temptation of transaction fees of the censored transactions. O'Connor further stated that if he found out he was in the economic minority, he would have little choice but to either accept the new rules or sell his Bitcoin. He emphasized that one person alone cannot use a currency. However, he acknowledged that Taproot was opt-in for users to use the functionality and future soft-forks should have the same considerations to the extent possible. Lastly, he mentioned that even though one can choose not to validate witnesses in SegWit, all the consequences of the change are not opt-in, and one would no longer be considered a full node.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T18:00:46.866500+00:00