When a hard fork is applied, the block size increases. When this occurs, the new block is larger than the previous block. The new blockchain will then reject it. Why? Because, as far as I can tell, the old block will stay valid on the original blockchain.
This also implies that the new block will be incompatible with the old one. Please tell me if I'm wrong, because the new blockchain has its own set of rules, right?
hard forks can change different things.
the trick used recently is that nodes dont validate all the data they receive in new transactions. the new transaction formats produced now use a trick that old nodes should just treat a 'non standard' transaction(to old nodes) as valid without checking for signatures or security requirements. hense allowing extra junk data to be added without rejection
its security risks like this which allow validation by-passes that are a concern. when nodes are not ready to fully validate data and new data is allowed to appear in the blockchain without a consensus vote of majority. it puts the blockchain at risk
yes this trick makes it easy for core to implement changes without consent of the masses which means the can progress their development. but it allows malicious stuff to occur too.. which is more reason we should:
a. scrutinise, critique, review and point out devs failures more
b. not blindly concede that devs can/should abuse the trick so frivolously and unhindered.
c.we should get back to the principles of decentralisation where only well INDEPENDENTLY reviewed code that serves a good function for the masses gets the vote. whereby it makes devs actually think and care about development rather then throw in any cludge they like or are sponsored to add
i now await the usual centralist ass kisser to cry about how he admires cores administration and control and how he thinks anyone disagreeing should "f**k off"
