I’ll trust you for now on what 110 is.
I heard 444 would have frozen existing “spam” coins for a year. All for less spam and non monetary uses, but radical ways of pruning existing coins and limiting spendability would be a major step too far. We cant start retroactively kneecapping existing utxos we don’t like as that could be more harmful to the network than utxo bloat. If this just puts in filters, that’s fine
Login to reply
Replies (1)
This is the source and explicitly outlines "Is there any risk of funds being frozen or lost?"
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2017/files?short_path=47c8e9a#diff-47c8e9acbd5c27c90120ebfd3765481b9ca47b3f2e74f4d7e674993937d6c490
Most of the technical discussion is here
https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/7U8YuMopR73k4XRYBA8DjhaGLJkyKPuXpxW9p7vmH45JHEyIj_oE_t4xk99hrNdvMGghpmooAMXOmWGaZ4UkwHPndzrpzIL0SX2SoTf0l3w=@proton.me/T/#m84a4f2f5ec4dc33be92b9030039b0025d77f56d1
and explanations are int he BIP 110 on Github. (110 and 444 are the same thing but instead of 444 the soft fork got number 110 assigned from Core)