On Tuesday 18 January 2022 22:02:24 e...@voskuil.org wrote:
> The only material distinction between BIP9 and BIP8 is that the latter may
> activate without signaled support of hash power enforcement.
>
> As unenforced soft forks are not "backward compatible" they produce a chain
> split.
Enforcement of the Bitcoin consensus protocol is by users, not miners.
Softforks never produce a chain split. Miners can, and might try to do it to
cause disruption in retaliation, but the softfork itself does not.
> It was for this reason alone that BIP8 never gained sufficient
> support.
BIP 8 in fact achieved consensus for Taproot activation.
> This is one of the most misleading statements I've seen here. It's not
> technically a lie, because it states what "should" happen. But it is
> clearly intended to lead people to believe that BIP8 was actually used
> ("again") - it was not. ST was some technical tweaks to BIP9.
BIP 8 was used to activate Taproot.
> The outright deception around this one topic has led to significant
> unnecessary conflict in the community. Make your argument, but make it
> honestly.
You are the one attempting to deceive here.
Luke
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
