📅 Original date posted:2017-04-05
📝 Original message:A schism is just that: miners can't ameliorate a HF transition in the way they can censor transactions without permission. This is how miners became a convenient way to activate soft-forks.
So while BIP9 can indicate the later censorship (a soft fork) in a way that nodes can follow (or not) a hardfork always requires nodes to upgrade to the version increasing the degrees of freedom of the system.
Signaling is less useful here: the change is not opt-in and will require coordination; and the continuation of the chain thereafter depends on people actually running the hard-fork code, not just being aware there is something happening.
On 04/05/2017 12:08 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 April 2017 20:01:51 CEST Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
BIP 9 provides a mechanism for having miners coordinate softforks because they can make the upgrade process smoother this way. But the same is not true of hardforks: miners are essentially irrelevant to them, and cannot make the process any smoother.
Can you explain how miners are irrelevant if the upgrade is not a soft fork?
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170405/a0b4d424/attachment.html>;
Thomas Kerin [ARCHIVE] /
npub1e4…nt5am
2023-06-07 17:59:02
in reply to nevent1q…qgl0
Author Public Key
npub1e4azew50kk9xzvfpqxzlyftkjt6kken0kf9lnncpdj524f9y4cqsfnt5amPublished at
2023-06-07 17:59:02Event JSON
{
"id": "bfe3bd391c4f75da69a9c497e133c11adbf71486826b583f7c6b32e1257c41c8",
"pubkey": "cd7a2cba8fb58a6131210185f2257692f56b666fb24bf9cf016ca8aaa4a4ae01",
"created_at": 1686160742,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3909d155f1982e3a0b455d11e4ee4341d4be262d42cc407a1e3075f6c71d559b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"953ece94e24013a483971fe9e06eede340ed10b19b8aa1d317b3896d3e7bf993",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"dcb947d818dbfd7cf0baf26c0d5eb606b5a32336c5483fb53e05146315833ca7"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-04-05\n📝 Original message:A schism is just that: miners can't ameliorate a HF transition in the way they can censor transactions without permission. This is how miners became a convenient way to activate soft-forks. \n\nSo while BIP9 can indicate the later censorship (a soft fork) in a way that nodes can follow (or not) a hardfork always requires nodes to upgrade to the version increasing the degrees of freedom of the system. \n\nSignaling is less useful here: the change is not opt-in and will require coordination; and the continuation of the chain thereafter depends on people actually running the hard-fork code, not just being aware there is something happening.\n\n\nOn 04/05/2017 12:08 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\nOn Tuesday, 4 April 2017 20:01:51 CEST Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: \n\nBIP 9 provides a mechanism for having miners coordinate softforks because they can make the upgrade process smoother this way. But the same is not true of hardforks: miners are essentially irrelevant to them, and cannot make the process any smoother. \n\nCan you explain how miners are irrelevant if the upgrade is not a soft fork? \n\n\n\n-- \nSent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170405/a0b4d424/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "ffc277f71fd4f0a4dcf7c62be4c44e505f0d780c203993fb0e5e21358661bead384ee9659bb6c419b14cbc4e8d54e6038b418346170d2bf5f6f4f4a2fdefff05"
}