Nostr Web Client

If there is a soft fork in #bitcoin and transactions are made, then miners will mine the blocks, and nodes will verify. The longest timechain continues.

If someone else comes along with another soft fork, but their soft fork doesn’t include the newest upgrades, then that is actually a hard fork.

Unlike the blocksize wars, it’s possible this hard fork could pump very quickly. BlackRock has already said if the chain splits, they may not choose the "real Bitcoin".

I’m worried we might be put to this test soon, and our desire for fiat will battle against our love of freedom.

Please don’t fork off of Bitcoin 🙏🏻

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

highperfocused ⚡ 2y ago

I'm thinking about your hard fork definition.

Because a soft fork is backwards compatible and when another soft fork comes in, it's not a hard fork but only yet another soft fork, isn't it?

In my definition, a hard fork is when I for example have to update my Fullnode (Bitcoin Core) in order to receive the "new" Blockchain. If I don't upgrade, I will only get block valid with the old version but not with the new one.

A hard fork only appears, when the blockchain itself splits, isn't it?

BTCapsule 🏴 2y ago

For example, say I soft fork the Bitcoin Core version before Taproot. This would be a "soft fork" because it’s compatible with everything prior to Taproot. Nodes are currently doing this now.

However, since transactions have already been mined with Taproot, if I add additional features to my soft fork that don’t include Taproot, then this is a hard fork. It is no longer backwards compatible with the longest timechain. Does that make sense?

Hello World 2y ago

It is a very interesting hypothetical. It is too difficult to predict what would happen. I’m not worried though, they can fuck around and find out.

⚡️ᗪㄖ匚⚡️ 2y ago

Maybe certain factions shouldn’t be pushing through an extremely controversial soft fork in the first place, increasing the risk for a situation like this 🤷‍♂️

BTCapsule 🏴 2y ago

I get that, but I see a MASF as a sort of separation of powers. There are people who want drivechains, and the miners are the only option.

Otherwise, complete control belongs to the Core developers. Namely a handful of people who have authority to merge code.

Getting mass consensus when Michael Saylor shares videos with verifiably false information is not an easy task.

Dullahan 2y ago

The people that are prone to propose and/or accept fork proposals should be extremely careful then. A complex system can only be made from simple enough rules. If the rules of the system become more and more complex, it will become something similar to an insignificant bacteria.

So the only way for this pumping you are mentioning to be successful, is introducing the most deletereous and aberrant fork proposals. Otherwise, the rules of the system will become too complex and no one will accept that BS. That's why the bitcoin community has to raise awareness of these topics

MattM 2y ago

We will have to hard fork eventually due to overflow bug.