Core’s current deployment of segwit is not a soft fork, and we should not let anyone get away with calling it one. _ btc

When Core’s current SegWit deployment activates, any former fully validating node that opts out loses it’s ability to fully validate on the Bitcoin network. Webmaster tools remove url All valid transactions after true soft forks should be subsets of what legacy nodes accept as valid, and so legacy nodes should always be able to fully validate all transactions after the fork activates. Https webmaster tools Since “soft” fork SegWit breaks this definition, it can in no way be considered a real soft fork.

All valid transactions after true soft forks should be subsets of what legacy nodes accept as valid, and so legacy nodes should always be able to fully validate all transactions after the fork activates.


Webmaster tools mobile friendly Since “soft” fork SegWit breaks this definition, it can in no way be considered a real soft fork.

They’re correct about this, because legacy nodes do validate just according to the ruleset that they understand, and the reason that this works is because the anyone-can-spend opcodes are default always valid (until softforked) but transactions containing them are non-standard (which prevents old nodes from relaying tx’s that they don’t understand). Webmaster tools tutorial The legacy nodes rely on hashpower analogous to SPV level security for the new tx’s in blocks, but this is no different than softforks like P2SH.

The broader substance though overall of what you’re saying I think is valuable, in that I think we need alot more sophistication than the “softforks safe and awesome / hardforks bad” narrative that Core has been jamming down our throats for a couple years now. Webmaster tools url There are definitely very different classes of softforks, that technically fit the definition of the new rules being a subset of the former rules, but have lesser or greater disruptive effects to the functioning of the network and ecosystem, and there is no question that segwit as a softfork imposes alot of cost on the ecosystem that is obscured by platitudes about the safety of softforks.

I didn’t say “derived from” I said restrict further, but perhaps we’re talking past each other here. Webmaster tools sitemap What is it about your understanding that would make non-SegWit supporting nodes not able to fully validate transactions if SegWit were really a soft fork?

I think the ability of my full node to fully validate all transactions back to the Genesis Block is what allows it to function as trustlessly as possible, so I intended to guard that capability jealously. Login webmaster tools A fork that comes along claiming it’s “soft” but that takes away this capability will always be called out for what it actually is, a hard fork in disguise.

I think the ability of my full node to fully validate all transactions back to the Genesis Block is what allows it to function as trustlessly as possible, so I intended to guard that capability jealously. Webmaster tools disavow links A fork that comes along claiming it’s “soft” but that takes away this capability will always be called out for what it actually is, a hard fork in disguise.

Soft forks invalidate blocks/transactions that would have previously been valid. Webmaster tools tools Hard forks validate blocks/transactions that would previously have been invalid. Keywords webmaster tools Nothing more, nothing less.

There is no “technicality” that can be legitimately applied here. Google webmaster tools google analytics Bitcoin full nodes have always been able to fully validate all transactions in the block chain entirely for themselves (excepting disputed past hard forks in Bitcoin’s history). Webmaster tools app If a fork occurs that takes away this capability for legacy nodes, it cannot be considered to have further restricted rules in a subset, nor can it be considered truly backwards compatible. How to get webmaster tools verification code It’s simply hard fork behavior.

The same can be said of any soft fork that has happened in the past. On the webmaster tools home page For example, when CSV was activated, the NOP3 opcode changed from unconditionally valid to only sometimes valid. Webmaster tools crawl Anyone who did not immediately update their node was no longer fully validating transactions just as would be the case with SegWit.

I’m not at all saying there have not been past instances of these fake “soft forks” that got activated and effectively instituted stealth hard forks. Webmaster tools meta tag In fact, it’s a major shame that the Bitcoin community allowed those to slide through unchallenged, and so allow this sloppy bastardization of what acutally constitutes a real soft fork into regular usage.

I’ll give the quintessential example a true soft fork that complies with the actual definition: Satoshi Nakamoto’s stealthily adding the original 1 MB block size limit. Contact webmaster tools Legacy nodes before that true soft fork have never lost their ability to fully validate solely due to this soft fork.

Any block/transaction that a SegWit node thinks is valid will also be valid according to a legacy node, but the reverse is not true. Best webmaster tools That’s all that a soft fork is.

I disagree, because the definitions also list rules for transactions not just blocks. Webmaster tools english It’s the difference between the complete Bitcoin security model and SPV-like security models. Webmaster tools tutorial 2015 A true soft fork could never cause a legacy fully secure node to be forced into a less secure and less private SPV model.

(Emphasis mine) This is just another way of describing how “soft” fork SegWit is a hard fork. Webmaster tools submit url to index Hard forks require everyone to switch at once to operate without losing functionality on the new chain. Free webmaster tools That’s what this “soft” fork requires, and is another way to prove it’s really a hard fork in disguise.

I’ll give the quintessential example a true soft fork that complies with the actual definition: Satoshi Nakamoto’s stealthily adding the original 1 MB block size limit. Top webmaster tools Legacy nodes before that true soft fork have never lost their ability to fully validate solely due to this soft fork.

But they did lose their ability to fully validate. Webmaster tools tracking code If a 2MB block were to be created, those legacy nodes would have validated it while the new soft fork full nodes would have marked it as invalid. Webmaster seo tools This is just like what would happen with SegWit. Gogole webmaster tools If a “non SegWit compatible block” were to be created, those legacy nodes would have validated it while the new soft fork full nodes would have marked it as invalid. Webmaster tools sitelinks The “non SegWit compatible block” in this case would be one that includes an anyone-can-spend transaction that does not have a corresponding valid SegWit signature in the new witness data section.

I think that if we can agree on this point, then the rest will make sense. Best free webmaster tools For any soft fork you can give me, I can come up with an example of a block that would be marked as invalid by the new soft fork full node but valid by the legacy node.

(Emphasis mine) This is just another way of describing how “soft” fork SegWit is a hard fork. Webmaster tools blog Hard forks require everyone to switch at once to operate without losing functionality on the new chain. Webmaster tools yoast That’s what this “soft” fork requires, and is another way to prove it’s really a hard fork in disguise.

Not really. Webmaster tools www SegWit does not change what the code refers to as a block. Analytics webmaster tools It simply adds a witness block, and it changes what humans refer to as a block to mean the combination of a witness block and the “base” block. Webmaster tools for blogger It can make discussion difficult due to the mixed terminology, but the code is clear.

The block is the root data structure for consensus. Download webmaster tools All data that is consensus-critical is either part of the block (like the header) or has its hash committed to the block (like transactions and the SegWit extension block). Webmaster tools video All consensus rules are therefore related to blocks and the data they contain, which means that all definitions of forks relate to blocks and the data they contain.

When the BIP66 rule was added forcing ECDSA signatures to always have a positive S value (among other things), old nodes were not checking the positive S rule, therefore they were not fully validating, and according to your definition, it was a hard fork.

When the 1 MB limit was added, old nodes were not checking the new 1 MB rule, therefore they were not fully validating, and according to your definition, it was a hard fork.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *