It's not essentially a hard fork-- it's a soft fork. And it doesn't necessarily have to be done by Core. (Nor do I think their reputation is deteriorated in the eyes of serious people.)
Login to reply
Replies (4)
Core’s reputation is not deteriorated in the eyes of serious people? Did I read that right? Are all people employed at BM completely retarded?
View quoted note →
If it's contested, if forces and chain choice and a split that cannot be brought back together without another emergency intervention. So yes, effectively it is a hard fork by history change rather then a rule change. And if not Core, who and how? I think there are some very serious and committed bitcoiners on the knots side that are interested in maintaining bitcoin as money and I don't think they will capitulate. Yourself, and youre inner circle of serious bitcoiners may not thing Cores reputation has deteriorated but the reality is 22% of the network jumped ship, price has been down huge since release, lead maintainer gone, legendary supporter likely involved with epstein, and having to pull the Core 30 release for a major bug. Doesnt look great to me
"Their reputation is not deteriorated in the eyes of serious people" What an odd thing to say about people involved with Epstein who changed Bitcoin software for Citrea and spammers.
your simple checkpoint doesnt address the older nodes on the network from re-org risk which would be a forced upgrade. checkpoints to invalidate valid chain(s) of blocks would be a hard fork