It was pointed out to me that this discussion is largely moot as the software complexity for Bitcoin Core to ship an
option like this is likely not practical/what people would wish to see.
Bitcoin Core does not have infrastructure to handle switching consensus rules with the same datadir - after running with
uasf=true for some time, valid blocks will be marked as invalid, and additional development would need to occur to
enable switching back to uasf=false. This is complex, critical code to get right, and the review and testing cycles
needed seem to be not worth it.
Instead, the only practical way to ship such an option would be to treat it as a separate chain (the same way regtest,
testnet, and signet are treated), including its own separate datadir and the like.
Matt
On 2/19/21 09:13, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
(Also in response to ZMN...)
Bitcoin Core has a long-standing policy of not shipping options which shoot
yourself in the foot. I’d be very disappointed if that changed now. People are
of course more than welcome to run such software themselves, but I anticipate
the loud minority on Twitter and here aren’t processing enough transactions or
throwing enough financial weight behind their decision for them to do anything
but just switch back if they find themselves on a chain with no blocks.
There’s nothing we can (or should) do to prevent people from threatening to
(and possibly) forking themselves off of bitcoin, but that doesn’t mean we
should encourage it either. The work Bitcoin Core maintainers and developers do
is to recommend courses of action which they believe have reasonable levels of
consensus and are technically sound. Luckily, there’s strong historical
precedent for people deciding to run other software around forks, so
misinterpretation is not very common (just like there’s strong historical
precedent for miners not unilaterally deciding forks in the case of Segwit).
Matt
On Feb 19, 2021, at 07:08, Adam Back <a...@cypherspace.org> wrote:
would dev consensus around releasing LOT=false be considered as "developers forcing
their views on users"?
given there are clearly people of both views, or for now don't care
but might later, it would minimally be friendly and useful if
bitcoin-core has a LOT=true option - and that IMO goes some way to
avoid the assumptive control via defaults.
Otherwise it could be read as saying "developers on average
disapprove, but if you, the market disagree, go figure it out for
yourself" which is not a good message for being defensive and avoiding
mis-interpretation of code repositories or shipped defaults as
"control".
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
