Timeline for Why does everyone say that soft forks restrict the existing ruleset?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2023 at 19:07 | comment | added | Vojtěch Strnad | Interesting piece of P2P protocol trivia, thanks! | |
| Jun 15, 2023 at 19:02 | comment | added | Pieter Wuille | Yeah perhaps, I think it may be matter of perspective. I see the P2P protocol change that allows relay of witnesses as separate from the validation rule changes. If you define "old spends" as "non-segwit output spends that don't have witnesses", then indeed nothing changes for old spends. But to be rigorous, I think it's worthwhile to be aware that non-segwit output spends with witnesses are possible in the P2P protocol, but violate segwit's consensus rules. | |
| Jun 15, 2023 at 18:54 | comment | added | Vojtěch Strnad | @PieterWuille Does the restriction for other spends that a witness isn't allowed really count as a soft fork since according to the old rules witnesses don't exist? | |
| Jun 15, 2023 at 18:44 | comment | added | Pieter Wuille |
Nit: segwit restricted spending of all OP_0 <2 to 40 bytes> (all but 20 and 32 bytes are unconditionally invalid), and also within P2SH. Arguably, it also added a restriction for other spends (they are not allowed to have a witness); see my answer.
|
|
| Jun 15, 2023 at 18:38 | history | answered | Vojtěch Strnad | CC BY-SA 4.0 |