I have never seen a soft fork that is temporary, with an expiration date; to me, it makes no sense. On what basis is it canceled or reapplied when it expires? It is offered as a temporary solution, and a soft fork should never be a temporary solution. Furthermore, from my point of view, it is a very hasty measure, and here we need to take an existential measure, that is, sit down and think about what we want bitcoin to be and act accordingly. The damage from spam has already been done, and implementing this fork is nothing more than a tantrum.

Replies (1)

Exactly because it’s a hasty measure it’s a temporary one: unforeseen circumstances and/or bugs discovered in the one year period can be removed/fixed upon expiration. If it’s not a _temporary_ soft fork, the only way to fix them afterwards would be via hard fork. Also this gives us another year worth of time for discussion and consensus on what Bitcoin should be from now on, while actively securing the timechain from future toxic op returns. Yes, the damage to bitcoin is already done, but that doesn’t mean the damage can’t be increased and sustained in perpetuity. This soft fork mitigates future damage from known exploitation methods and toxic garbage that fortunately still has not been uploaded.