A soft fork without consensus does *not* lead to a (lasting) chain split if and when a majority of hash power mines the soft fork chain.
The non-soft fork chain will be re-org'ed out of existence every time the soft fork chain becomes longer, because non-upgraded nodes will switch to it.
If users/miners on the non-soft fork chain want to prevent this, they need to take action to reject the soft fork chain.
Luke is right about that.
You're right.
👀 👆
Thanks for the clarification.
nostr:nprofile1qqsqfjg4mth7uwp307nng3z2em3ep2pxnljczzezg8j7dhf58ha7ejgprpmhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet5qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2aqnz0fd0 , totally respect your decision to oppose BIP 444, but given some of your posts, I'm wondering if you're not straw manning the other side.
you are describing a soft fork with consensus
I am not.
if a majority of hash and/or users are not actively rejecting a soft fork then there is rough consensus…
As long as we agree on the mechanics of soft forks, there’s probably no real need to get into the semantics of a word like “consensus”, but still…
If 40% of users and miners actively reject the soft fork (URSF), you’d still consider that a soft fork with consensus?
--> "A soft fork without consensus does *not* lead to a (lasting) chain split if and when a majority of hash power mines the soft fork chain"
If the majority of hash mines, the software chain, then it's kind of back-in consensus, right?
Theoretically: All forks eventually *get resolved* it's a matter of when. As they're being *resolved*, they are _out of consensus_
f-n auto text
*If the majority of hash mines the softfork chain, then it's kind of back-in consensus, right?*
