Hard Fork. Soft Fork. A Question or Two

[OROBTC]

...

1)  I read (elsewhere, not here at BTCtalk) that were there to be a hard fork that what would happen to us users is that each would get the same amount of BTC in each branch of the fork.  So, if the main blockchain had a fork, we would all get our BTC on whichever chain "won" and yet still have "BTC" of lesser value on the losing branch.  Meaning, I suppose, that we apparently don't lose out...

Is this (more-or-less) true?

2)  I have noted various discussions of Hard Fork vs. Soft Fork.  What would be the practical difference to just the casual users (like me)?

* * *

While I am in the mood to ask questions, I also read (elsewhere) that "the core developers" are now more concerned about their own status, pet ideas, etc. than the "general good of the Bitcoin Community".  Comments?

Finally, what is the current status of the general upgrades to Bitcoin (larger blocks, higher capacity, etc.)?


I do understand that many of these topics are addressed elsewhere, but a new thread on these issues might be of interest to our community.  And thank you for helping me and others increase our understanding of Bitcoin.

[1715538904]

1715538904

[Yakamoto]

Soft fork - similar to what happened with ETH iirc, where they got ETC and ETH and then they had different economies, similar to what you're saying here. It should be noted that anyone can make a fork, everyone essentially has the same amount of Bitcoin they did on both chains.

Hard fork - everyone changes immediately and the other blockchain is considered void.

This is just my understanding, might be wrong.

As for the practicals of it, if a soft fork occurs, something ETH-like is likely to happen, e.i. inter-chain competition and lost value until one or the other wins. Hard fork, and we get new tech without any issues of splitting the community, unless people want to leave because they aren't getting their way.

[Yogafan00000]

The only time it might be a problem for casual user is if the hard fork happens while you have a transaction in progress.

If this happens, though, it's a very big problem for you and your trading partner.

This is why hard fork is so serious.

[Decoded]

In my understanding, A soft fork can also be described as a result of a failed hard fork. During a hard fork, a consensus must be made and fulfilled for almost everyone to move over to the fork. The original will still exist, but since everyone has moved over, the original dies off. There is no demand.

A soft fork, like what happened to ETC and ETH, is when a consensus I not met, but people move over anyway, and create two thriving (or with a small backing) communities.

If you're hoping that you will effectively double your Bitcoin:s value, you're wrong. In the event of a soft fork, the demand will be split. Economically, the price would be split proportionally. But with time, either both will grow, like Bitcoin and ETH, or one will die out, like Bitcoin and LTC (Sorry you LTC lovers)

[Xester]

There is a big debate  pertaining the use of soft fork or hard fork and all of this are running for one reason, it is to increase the blocksize. For me the current bitcoin is good enough, we dont need to alter it. Even though bitcoin is like this but look at how people loved it. The users are not concerned about this issues but rather the miners are. If there will be an adoption of fork will it settle the problem or will just cause more users to leave bitcoin.

[AgentofCoin]

...
1)  I read (elsewhere, not here at BTCtalk) that were there to be a hard fork that what would happen to us users is that each would get the same amount of BTC in each branch of the fork.  So, if the main blockchain had a fork, we would all get our BTC on whichever chain "won" and yet still have "BTC" of lesser value on the losing branch.  Meaning, I suppose, that we apparently don't lose out...
Is this (more-or-less) true?

2)  I have noted various discussions of Hard Fork vs. Soft Fork.  What would be the practical difference to just the casual users (like me)?
...

Yes, under a hardfork the chain is split and your coins will exist, with the same privatekey, on both chains.
Normally when a hardfork occurs, only one chain should survive since it should only be done with very high consensus.


-Hardfork, creates two chains, one has rule changes that allows previously violating rules,
the other has the prior non-violating rules.

-Softfork, maintains the single chain, but has rules changes that are "stricter" under
the pre-existing rules.

Soft fork - similar to what happened with ETH iirc, where they got ETC and ETH and then they had different economies, similar to what you're saying here. It should be noted that anyone can make a fork, everyone essentially has the same amount of Bitcoin they did on both chains.

As for the practicals of it, if a soft fork occurs, something ETH-like is likely to happen, e.i. inter-chain competition and lost value until one or the other wins. Hard fork, and we get new tech without any issues of splitting the community, unless people want to leave because they aren't getting their way.

In my understanding, A soft fork can also be described as a result of a failed hard fork. During a hard fork, a consensus must be made and fulfilled for almost everyone to move over to the fork. The original will still exist, but since everyone has moved over, the original dies off. There is no demand.

A soft fork, like what happened to ETC and ETH, is when a consensus I not met, but people move over anyway, and create two thriving (or with a small backing) communities.

No, you are both incorrect.
ETH/ETC situation was a failed hardfork, not a softfork.

If two chains survive from a hardfork, that is a failed hardfork.
Under a softfork, there can not be two chains since the chain is not split.

[Carlton Banks]

AgentOf Coin is right to say others in this thread have it wrong, they do



Soft Forks add rules that do not conflict with any of the pre-existing rules. Old (pre-fork) nodes can still use old features, but cannot use the new features.


Hard Forks add rules that do conflict with at least one of the pre-existing rules. Old (pre-fork) nodes cannot use anything, except amongst themselves. They are cut off from the new fork completely (and hence anyone owning BTC before the fork has the same amount on both separate blockchains after the fork)


We've had something like 10-12 soft forks so far. I think there's only ever been one hard fork, and that was caused by an emergency situation due to a bug introduce in version 0.8, back in 2013.

Both types have their place, they're both useful, the fact that both have been used (all for different reasons) demonstrates that.

[franky1]

soft forks - (high pool consensus(95%), high node consensus)
does not need node consensus to activate. if activated by majority pools. those minority nodes that did not upgrade are not fully validating anymore, and basically passing on data it cannot check. low risk of issues due to high node acceptance to validate blocks

soft forks - (high pool consensus, low node consensus)
does not need node consensus to activate. if activated by pools. those majority nodes that did not upgrade are not fully validating anymore, and basically passing on data it cannot check. higher risk of issues due to low node acceptance to validate blocks

soft forks - (low pool consensus, low node consensus)
does not need node consensus to activate. if activated by minority pools, then the majority of the network are not fully validating anymore, and basically passing on data it cannot check. extreme risk of issues due to low node acceptance to validate blocks
hard forks - (high consensus(95%), low minority, low controversy)
IF node counts for it is high enough and pool count is high enough the new rules get activated and anyone left unupgraded is left unable to sync and not receiving any new blocks. they are left in a stalled/halted/stuck state. not in a separate network.. just dead in the water.

hard forks - (over 50% consensus - medium controversy)
If pools pushed a hard fork without a high majority node count and with out a pools high majority count. this will cause LOTS of orphans. these orphans eventually sort themselves out until only one chain remains. and once the orphan drama pushed the blockheight of the new rules ahead of the opposition anyone left unupgraded is left unable to sync and not receiving any new blocks. they are left in a stalled/halted/stuck state. not in a separate network.. just dead in the water.. be wary of low confirm transactions during the orphan drama

hard forks - (under 50% consensus - high controversy)
If pools pushed a hard fork without any majority node count and with out a pools majority count. this will cause LOTS of orphans. due to the low consensus the remaining (old rules) would win(eventually) and orphan off the new rule blocks. but the orphan drama could continue on for a while.
be wary of low confirm transactions while pools continue to try pushing.
hard forks - (intentional controversial split, no consensus)
if pools intentionally added a blacklist opposition function by literally avoiding connecting to nodes that oppose a rule. this WILL cause an altcoin.

no one is officially proposing the "intentional controversial split, no consensus"..
the official proposals for hard forks are high consensus.

core unofficially want the opposition to do a controversial split but thats pure stupidity.
also core have hinted if core dont get their softfork activated they will do a controversial split intentionally to get their softfork added. but officially they are holding back on that idea because if they have to intentionally split then that's a worse decision than just doing a consensus hard fork (something they are stupidly avoiding to offer the community the chance to vote on in the first place)

as for ethereum. this was NOT a high consensus. this was an intentional split. ethereum actually added a blacklist to ignore opposing clients
--oppose-dao-fork