Re: [bitcoin-dev] Increasing the blocksize as a (generalized) softfork.

[Bob McElrath <bob_bitcoin@mcelrath.org>]

Jonathan Toomim [j@toom.im] wrote:
> 
> The generalized softfork method has the advantage of being merge-mined

That's an over-generalization.  There are two kinds of soft-forks WRT mining,
those which:

1. involve new validation rules by data-hiding from non-upgraded modes
    (e.g. extension blocks, generalized softfork)
2. involve NO new validation logic (e.g. P2SH)

Miners which are not validating transactions *should* be deprived of revenue,
because their role is transaction validation, not simply brute forcing sha256d.

So I'm very strongly against this "generalized softfork" idea -- I also don't
see how upgraded nodes and non-upgraded nodes can possibly end up with the same
UTXO set.

> > Once a chain is seen to be 6 or more blocks ahead of my chain tip, we should
> > enter "zombie mode" and refuse to mine or relay
> 
> I like this method. However, it does have the problem of being voluntary. If
> nodes don't upgrade to a version that has the latent zombie gene long before a
> fork, then it does nothing.

Which is why it should be put into core long before forks.  ;-)

--
Cheers, Bob McElrath

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."
    -- H. L. Mencken