[bitcoin-dev] Increasing the blocksize as a (generalized) softfork.
bob_bitcoin at mcelrath.org
Thu Dec 31 00:04:42 UTC 2015
Jonathan Toomim [j at toom.im] wrote:
> The generalized softfork method has the advantage of being merge-mined
That's an over-generalization. There are two kinds of soft-forks WRT mining,
1. involve new validation rules by data-hiding from non-upgraded modes
(e.g. extension blocks, generalized softfork)
2. involve NO new validation logic (e.g. P2SH)
Miners which are not validating transactions *should* be deprived of revenue,
because their role is transaction validation, not simply brute forcing sha256d.
So I'm very strongly against this "generalized softfork" idea -- I also don't
see how upgraded nodes and non-upgraded nodes can possibly end up with the same
> > Once a chain is seen to be 6 or more blocks ahead of my chain tip, we should
> > enter "zombie mode" and refuse to mine or relay
> I like this method. However, it does have the problem of being voluntary. If
> nodes don't upgrade to a version that has the latent zombie gene long before a
> fork, then it does nothing.
Which is why it should be put into core long before forks. ;-)
Cheers, Bob McElrath
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."
-- H. L. Mencken
More information about the bitcoin-dev