Author: Mike Hearn 2015-09-30 21:01:09
Published on: 2015-09-30T21:01:09+00:00
The conversation is regarding the use of CheckLockTimeVerify (CLTV) in soft forks. The initial response claims that the article contained factual and logical inaccuracies which were not convincing. The writer further explains why a full node should run scripts correctly and how a soft fork breaks that assumption. When asked why CLTV couldn't have been done as a hard-fork, the writer believes picking an entirely new opcode number would be more natural. In response to whether P2SH could have been done as a hard-fork, the writer thinks it was irrelevant from a fork type perspective and came later due to resource prioritization. The activation threshold for CLTV is fine at 75%, but the writer questions its demonstrated track record citing P2SH-invalid blocks being mined for weeks after the flag day as evidence of risk.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T23:11:12.425782+00:00