Nostr Archives

Little incentive to invest time and effort in creating a URSF client when there’s ~no support for a UASF in the first place. Post-fork, in the unlikely scenario that a re-org becomes even a even slightly feasible risk, a simple checkpoint suffices.

💬 11 replies

Thread context

Root: 09e6fb16ad55…

Replying to: 185e41567529…

Replies (11)

Aaron van Wirdum36d ago

It's not essentially a hard fork-- it's a soft fork. And it doesn't necessarily have to be done by Core. (Nor do I think their reputation is deteriorated in the eyes of serious people.)

0000 sats

Nyoro~n35d ago

your simple checkpoint doesnt address the older nodes on the network from re-org risk which would be a forced upgrade. checkpoints to invalidate valid chain(s) of blocks would be a hard fork

0000 sats

Aaron van Wirdum36d ago

See, the error in your thinking is that you think "hard fork" means "chain split", and "soft fork" means "no chain split".

0000 sats

Aaron van Wirdum35d ago

The same is true for BIP110 so by your own logic that would be a hard fork too. (Of course neither are hard forks; both are soft forks.)

0000 sats

Nyoro~n35d ago

its not, bip110 blocks remain compatible with exisiting nodes on the network which is why there exist the possibility of wipeout (however small). the wipeout risk wouldnt be solved without a solution like your checkpoint, which is a forced upgrade. ursf to bip110 isnt a softfork

0000 sats

Ferris Bueller35d ago

You’re hiding behind definitions. In the real world, a contested checkpoint forces a chain choice and locks in history, which is a split in everything but name. Calling it soft doesn’t change that.

0000 sats

Aaron van Wirdum35d ago

Yeah same is true for BIP110, and that’s the point.

0000 sats

sudocarlos34d ago

may be worth making an episode of bitcoin explained for bip110 so people know what theyre getting into. no bias or endorsement, just the technicals and the outcome scenarios. cc @8685ebef…58f8faf8 or not. dont feed the trolls 🤷‍♂️

0000 sats

Aaron van Wirdum35d ago

Non-upgraded nodes just follow the longest chain, whether that’s the UASF or the URSF/checkpoint chain. They’re both soft forks. But you can believe what you want to believe.

0000 sats

Nyoro~n35d ago

the wipeout risk is there for non-upgraded nodes because the difficulty adjustment still exists i believe any scenario is far from certain and bip110 doesnt present any harm

0000 sats