Author: Anthony Towns 2015-10-10 07:23:26
Published on: 2015-10-10T07:23:26+00:00
In a discussion on bitcoin-dev, Anthony Towns suggested that a safe soft fork would be more restrictive than consensus but less restrictive than policy. He was unsure if BIP68 (nSequence) was less restrictive than current policy. However, it was later determined in a weekly meeting that BIP68 is indeed less restrictive than current policy. IsStandardTx currently returns a failure if the transaction version is greater than 1, but nSequence will only be enforced with transaction versions of 2 or greater, making BIP68 a "safe soft fork." BIP65 (OP_CLTV), BIP68 (nSequence), and BIP112 (OP_CSV) are all considered safe soft forks and should not cause SPV nodes to see a significant uptick in reorgs or double-spends. The vulnerability to people deliberately spending hashpower to mine invalid blocks remains a problem regardless of whether a soft-fork is underway. The details of the discussion can be found in the linked meeting log.
Updated on: 2023-05-19T22:03:27.139110+00:00