5d5a9d…ec29e525d agoBIP-110 was originally called BIP-444 and during that time there was a lot of talk about it having the ability to roll back the chain if needed.
BIP-444 suggests that if illegal content is detected in a block, the Bitcoin network could roll back to a previous state before the offending block.
I cannot find this same type of language in BIP-110. But, I also haven’t seen or heard it explicitly stated that the ability to roll back the chain is no longer a part of the new BIP-110 proposal. This is my only hesitation in signaling for the UASF.
@74ffc51c…1d6d1856 @Luke Dashjr @e88681cf…31532c7f
💬 2 replies
Replies (2)
Luke Dashjr25d agoIt's not part of BIP110, but I don't care. Bitcoin is dead if it mandates CSAM distribution. If such a block is created, I am personally rejecting it and encouraging everyone else to do the same regardless.
0000 sats
5d5a9d…ec29e525d agoI agree with rejecting blocks that contain spam which is why I run Knots (Thank you for that). The issue I have is any entity having the ability to roll back several good blocks in order to retroactively reject a bad block. But it sounds like you are saying that is definitely not a property of this UASF.
0000 sats