Jonathan Toomim [j...@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, those which: 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 UTXO set. > > 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 _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev