Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Misleading / incomplete definition of a soft fork #48

Open
NORICVM opened this issue Nov 17, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Misleading / incomplete definition of a soft fork #48

NORICVM opened this issue Nov 17, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@NORICVM
Copy link

NORICVM commented Nov 17, 2024

In Soft Forks vs. Hard Forks, we say the following about soft forks:

They only tighten or add rules to the existing protocol

This misleads the reader to think that a soft fork can not have inflationary (relaxing) effect on the protocol, which it can (e.g. segwit).

I propose adopting a more complete definition of a soft fork along these lines:

Changes to the protocol introduced by a soft fork are designed to prevent old nodes from being able to detect them. Once miners adopt a new soft fork, it is accepted by validating nodes by default. Rejection requires organized mobilization by validation node operators.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant