3 ms·
That's technically correct (the best kind of correct!) but there was no need to block them now when those nodes are still compatible and in line with the consen
by bhaak 9y ago
That's technically correct (the best kind of correct!) but there was no need to block them now when those nodes are still compatible and in line with the consensus rules of the core code.
- jstanley 9y agoAs long as there exists one node which still connects to both types, there won't be a partition now.
- bhaak 9y agoBut that was not the argument with which this feature was justified. It wasn't "we can forgo replay protection with this" but (among others) "we are even helping the hardforking side, during the BCH hardfork many BCH nodes connected to BTC nodes and couldn't propagate their transactions". But as long as the hardfork hasn't happened, there is no reason to do this. This just makes signalling even less useful than it already is because nodes will be encouraged to lie about their intentions.
- kobeya 9y agoIt is exactly the argument that was used. I don't know where you are getting your information, but I would seriously question the veracity of whatever source you are using. You can read it yourself here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10982 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10982