OverviewExploreTrending
Nostr Archives
OverviewExploreTrending
Super Testnet21d ago
The existence of a UASF for bip110 and a URSF against it has an interesting consequence for the spam war
💬 7 replies

Replies (7)

SSilentWave21d ago
How did this happen ? Turbo Knotzi, suddenly misses the plot ? Is this an ego thing with BIP110 not taking your fix ? Your actions have consequences, you're forcing an unnecessary chainsplit. You know BIP110 will be legacy, why hurt the network like that ? You can still roll back.. for now
0000 sats
Super Testnet21d ago
> Is this an ego thing with BIP110 not taking your fix ? Maybe. I do want them to take my fix and I can't rule out that it's an influence. I think, without my fix, BIP110 is bad, so I reject it.
0000 sats
Aaron van Wirdum21d ago
>I don't know of a good way to estimate that. Fork futures.
0000 sats
SSilentWave21d ago
Impressive answer. Is it worse than not having it though ? Could you add in your URSF a consensus level limitation of OP_RETURN ? Or fork BIP110 with your own fix ? There are other less disruptive solutions I believe.
0000 sats
Luke Dashjr21d ago
What "fix"? RDTS isn't broken...
0000 sats
Super Testnet20d ago
I outline my problems with the bip and some potential solutions in the readme of this repo: github.com/supertestnet/ursf-110
0000 sats
Luke Dashjr20d ago
So no actual bug, just FUD
0000 sats