There’s no need for a distinct v0.5.3 block explorer until after the fork begins, because Satoshi’s protocol recognizes all SegWit spends as valid “pay to anyone” transactions. So a Core protocol block explorer is valid for Satoshi’s protocol until when the fork-off begins.
The only thing you need to be worried about is to make sure that your BTC is stored in addresses that begin with 1. Even if you transacted through a SegWit address in the past, this would still be valid in the Satoshi chain after the fork-off, assuming that the miners don’t attempt to rollback the chain. Contrary to my misconceptualization when I was first learning about this issue, I doubt very much they would attempt to rollback the chain, because this would:
- decrease the Schelling point by penalizing some miners from joining the Satoshi chain
- decrease the valuation of the Satoshi chain by erasing some of the proof-of-work
- be more costly because the Satoshi chain would have to catch up with the accumulated proof-of-work difficulty (i.e. wouldn’t initially be the longest chain).
- penalize many of those who are trying to stay on the legacy protocol, thus reducing the Schelling point
- rolling back would break BTC’s fungibility and thus break its store-of-value valuation
If one is worried about rolling back the chain, could one use a DEX to spend into something like Monero and then back into a fresh nosegwit BTC address? Is it all addresses on chain that have only been used after v0.5.3?
IOW, if they roll back the chain, everything recorded after v0.5.3 was updated will be erased? (segwit or not)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
They will not rollback because they wouldn’t have the longest chain to force Core to fork off. Rolling back to genesis is insane, and would certainly fail.
At most we could be concerned about a few weeks of rollback and AFAICS the Satoshi miners have 0 incentive to do this.
If they did extensive rollbacks the only way to be safe would be to obtain your BTC from miners, but that would make BTC not fungible. I see no incentive for miners to set a precedent of breaking BTC’s fungibility when there’s no incentive for them to do so, and significant disincentives.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit