The Tragic Tale of BIP30

The discussion focuses on the complexity introduced by attempting to mitigate issues through various hard forks in blockchain projects, highlighting the inconsistency and irrationality of such approaches without considering more prevalent problems that may arise from these forks. It suggests a more rational approach would be for projects that have implemented hard forks to document them formally through Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs). This documentation process is seen as essential because some hard forks, which were deployed silently, could lead to significant issues like potential future chain splits. One such example mentioned is related to bip30, indicating a specific instance where lack of transparency and formalization in documenting changes can lead to unintended consequences.

Furthermore, the text underlines the importance of making informed decisions for both project teams and their users regarding the risks and benefits associated with removing certain safeguards, like checkpoints, which are believed to prevent chain splits. The narrative implies that by formally BIP-ing all hard forks, it provides a clearer consensus perspective, enabling better decision-making processes. This approach allows stakeholders to evaluate the genuine risk versus the benefit based on comprehensive information rather than relying on assurances from blockchain custodians that might downplay potential issues.

In essence, the argument advocates for greater transparency and formalization in the way blockchain projects implement and communicate changes stemming from hard forks. This would ostensibly facilitate a more informed and cautious approach to navigating the evolving landscape of blockchain technology and its governance.