The value of DEFAULT_CHECKPOINTS_ENABLED
is true
and changing it will allow nodes using the default settings to accept blocks that would be currently rejected during a potential reorg. Is this change considered a hard-fork, or only changes to clearly enforced consensus rules can qualify as such?
-
2That's a bit of a stretch. Related: bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/75735/5406– Murch ♦Jul 4, 2022 at 20:49
1 Answer
A hard fork is defined as a relaxation of the consensus rules. (In contrast a soft fork is defined as a restriction of the consensus rules.) Changing the consensus rules to ignore checkpoints by default (assuming the reference client Bitcoin Core defines the consensus rules) would be a relaxation of the consensus rules and hence theoretically a hard fork. However, in reality the checkpoints that have been defined in Bitcoin Core are many years deep and the probability of a re-org back to these checkpoints is infinitesimally small (zero to a huge number of decimal places). So practically it wouldn't have any impact.
Checkpoints and assumedvalid was discussed at this London BitDevs Socratic Seminar in November 2021 on AssumeUTXO.