Fixing Testnet4: proposal

[BayAreaCoins]

I don't consider a fork a new version.

Testnet5 will have a new start to the blocks.

This will remain Testnet4.  Also, it doesn't need 99.99% support to push the consensus rule, and it doesn't take very many miners to convince.

Exchanges have heavy-handed branding abilities.  A clean fork will not be 5 on my website.  No need to further confuse people fresh into Bitcoin.

(We shall see.  I did not see the email.)


As stated earlier Blackhat, we don't need the mailing list... let me see what you got and I'll talk to some people about getting it mined into consensus.  If anyone has a problem with it, they can mine against it...  Tis how this shit works, but everyone wants this fixed. (Even people mining empty blocks)

[stwenhao]

I don't consider a fork a new version.

You don't, but all of the existing software will do. And that's the problem with hard-forks: you have to convince everyone, or otherwise, you have a forked chain. Which is why soft-forks and no-forks are better.

Which means, that if you make your own changes, without merging them into Bitcoin Core, and without making them in a backward-compatible way, then all users of all old versions will land on a different chain.

And then, at block 150k, you will see your chain with ASIC-only blocks, but mempool.space will still show a different chain with CPU blocks. And all users with old Bitcoin Core versions will also land on the old chain.

I did not see the email.

It is now accepted: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/Jsv1VYpewuU/m/1CFgHWfSCQAJ