|
|
|
|
|
|
by petertodd
3255 days ago
|
|
|
> Hearn mentions this mechanism three times in the article. He even discusses the tradeoffs of ignoring this versus rejecting the block. Hardly misleading. Hearn mentions the nVersion mechanism? Specifically in https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-forks-c6a050... ? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any mention of the word "version" > He said "essentially tricked", and I think his explanation is clear. I think you're misunderstanding my point: everything you raised above is negated by the fact that the soft-fork mechanisms we use are designed to give warnings to users and miners who are not running the new(1) protocol. For example, in addition to the nVersion mechanism I mentioned, segwit transactions are intentionally designed to be not standard transactions, and thus non-segwit miners will reject them. This is an important feature to ensure that those miners don't unintentionally create invalid blocks. 1) I say "new" rather than "upgraded" to avoid making the claim that soft-forks are necessarily an upgrade. |
|
|
After re-reading it, I was absolutely mistaken. Hearn did mention a functionality to alert you when your node detects an invalid block. But he was trying to make the point that this was only possible with hard forks. It looks like the nVersion mechanism you mentioned negates his point.
Glad you mentioned that, you made it very clear to me that he was indeed being misleading there! I will edit my parent comments to indicate that.
For reference, here are the quotes I was referring to (again, his claim is that this is only possible with a hard fork):
> ...you will be alerted in some way, like via SMS or email if you configured that, and you get to decide what to do.
> ...if a user complains that their payment didn’t go through that’s a signal that you’re out of date, even if you forgot to configure your full node to email/SMS/phone you. But if you prefer to take the chance you can always configure your full node to act as if there was a soft fork whilst simultaneously trying to get your attention as best it can.
> ...a hard fork is still better. Firstly, it’s detectable, so a properly configured node can email/SMS/phone you to let you know it’s out of date.
Regarding your second point, you have not convinced me that I misunderstand. However you've been gracious enough to discuss it on HN thus far, so I won't press :) Perhaps point me to a link or start a convo with me through my contact info in my profile?
Thanks again!
EDIT
---
Did not realize I could no longer edit my parent comments. Hope everyone who is interested reads all the way down.