If you want to hear us trashing other people, be sure to catch the latest Roundtable!
nostr:nevent1qqsw7xlkdes8ru35lzn9j9zumnxalmfes7hkhmk4m4fhmp2qufv3xespzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhglykj69
(my final reply on this video)
Guy is right at 1:38:10 (and Mechanic wrong) when Guy said that a URSF will do something like require that the block at the activation height must have a large OP_RETURN.
Similarly, there will be a two-week period where BIP-110 has a consensus rule requiring that blocks signal for BIP-110 (version bit 4, IIRC) and reject blocks that don't signal. A URSF could reject the blocks that do signal and accept those that don't
There are lots of different ways that URSF could work. A URSF only has to apply to one block, forcing that block to do something that is rejected by BIP-110, and that is sufficient to ensure that the BIP-110 chain will never be accepted by the URSF clients, no matter how long it gets
To give one very simple and understandable example. We could code and release and run a URSF client today which requires that block 965664 contain at least one large OP_RETURN
Guy is right at 1:38:10 (and Mechanic wrong) when Guy said that a URSF will do something like require that the block at the activation height must have a large OP_RETURN.
Similarly, there will be a two-week period where BIP-110 has a consensus rule requiring that blocks signal for BIP-110 (version bit 4, IIRC) and reject blocks that don't signal. A URSF could reject the blocks that do signal and accept those that don't
There are lots of different ways that URSF could work. A URSF only has to apply to one block, forcing that block to do something that is rejected by BIP-110, and that is sufficient to ensure that the BIP-110 chain will never be accepted by the URSF clients, no matter how long it gets
To give one very simple and understandable example. We could code and release and run a URSF client today which requires that block 965664 contain at least one large OP_RETURN
1❤️1