Not if the users that pay them reject their blocks
Discussion
The users would have no reason to reject them, soft fork is within the current rules.
It changes the incentives of the network. And Paul being the piece of shit that he is knows there isn't network support so he is trying to go around users & appeal to miners directly. He is also screwing with precedents for updating the network which puts miners & users at odds & sews division. This whole thing is an attack purpetrated by a skeezy mf.
My point is, my node wouldn't reject the blocks. So what you're talking about is users hard forking out Paul's changes?
Yeh it’s funny. Which token will the hard forkers use?
Bitcoin with Drivechain will be using BTC.
Paul’s demeanor was a concern for me too, especially talking about a MASF and secret softforks.
I’ve listened to hours of Paul talking, and determined he is a very frustrated nerd. He has even compared Bitcoin code to Dragon Ball Z 😂
Paul never had any intention to do a "secret softfork". He told everyone this is possible, and nobody knew before he said it. The dubious thing would be to do it in secret.
I’ve come to realized a MASF is a sort of check on powers. Right now, if thousands of people want drivechains, we’re stuck with the Core developers to decide what philosophy Bitcoin should follow. Did you know Taproot was implemented with something called a "Speedy Trial"? Nobody complained about that, because the "experts" said it would be fine.
Softforks cannot kill Bitcoin. This is not something we should be concerned with. If Bitcoin is that fragile, then in the future we could be one softfork away from destroying the economy. Softforks are backwards compatible and give you the freedom to opt-out, which is the individual liberty Bitcoin provides.
There was a ton of debate over speedy trial & a bunch of people unhappy about it.