Portland HODL breaks down the different types of softforks and whether or not we (really) need another (spoiler: he thinks we do, but it’s not the one you might think…)
- Three types of softforks: security/network operation, feature activations, and improvements
- Feature improvements have been the most contentious, because they need to be both technically and socially “right”
- What is a softfork, anyway? TLDR: it’s a backwards compatible change where miners and nodes will enforce old rules in new blocks.
- Early bitcoin had loads of softfork. There have been 7 formal activations in Bitcoin’s history, and 5 of those came before Segwit in 2017(!)
- Softforks have unintended consequences. For eg, Segwit created a “caste system” for transactions, where economic transactions pay more for blockspace than transactions for arbitrary data
- What do hodlers want from devs? For them to not break bitcoin (and for number to go up…)
- Ideal soft fork has: consensus, scaling, no security tradeoffs, no centralizing force, no negative interactions, longterm stability
- Portland argues that yes, Bitcoin does need a softfork! And he believes that the most important one that is an immediate need is for the Great Consensus Cleanup
- Future issues that will need a softfork: timestamp bug (before 2106), quantum computing, and scaling
- Softforks people might want: OP_Vault, CTV, APO, LNHance, CISA, OP_CAT, GSR, OP_CHECKINTERNALKEY, CHECKSIGFROM_STACK
- Does Bitcoin need a softfork today? Not necessarily, particularly for “smart contract” upgrades, but it does need hardening with the Great Consensus Cleanup
