Timeline for How do nodes verify backwards incompatible blocks?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 5, 2020 at 21:39 | comment | added | chytrik | @MichaelFolkson I edited the answer to include some text from my comment, hopefully its a little more clear. Appreciate the feedback, helps to keep content on here accurate and easily digestible | |
| Dec 5, 2020 at 21:37 | history | edited | chytrik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 181 characters in body
|
| Dec 5, 2020 at 21:30 | comment | added | Michael Folkson | Ah ok I see what you mean, your answer wasn't clear to me. Yeah if you include the historical consensus rules in the soft fork consensus rules then yeah old blocks are still valid because they are not being assessed by the same rules as the new blocks. | |
| Dec 5, 2020 at 21:26 | comment | added | chytrik | No it isn't, in such an example the consensus rules would be "all blocks after x height must follow 'new rule'". Older blocks are thus still implicitly valid under this 'current consensus ruleset'. To put it differently: the consensus ruleset doesn't just cover what new blocks are supposed to look like, they also cover what the historical valid chain looks like! | |
| Dec 5, 2020 at 21:22 | comment | added | Michael Folkson | This is incorrect. Old blocks aren't necessarily valid under the new consensus rules post soft fork activation. A soft fork enforces additional restrictions that old blocks aren't expected to abide by. | |
| Dec 5, 2020 at 21:13 | history | answered | chytrik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |