Apr 20, 2024

>The bip30 check... This is an example of Core pushing forks to try and mitigate performance issues that are a consequence of their implementation, not inherent to consensus. bip30 defined a soft fork, which was necessary. Then there was a hard fork which enforced it only in the case of a bip34 checkpoint, and then there was another soft fork which reenabled it because it was later determined that the previous hard fork would cause a chain split in the not-so-distant future. And of course there is an ongoing effort to resolve it again now that it becomes reenabled at that future point.