Author: Peter Todd 2016-01-29 19:11:52
Published on: 2016-01-29T19:11:52+00:00
In a discussion on the Bitcoin-dev mailing list, Jannes Faber questioned what would happen to the remaining 1% chain if a non-contentious hard fork was implemented. Peter Todd replied with his thoughts on the risks of hard forks and suggested that activation thresholds for hard forks should be above 99%, measured over a multi-week timespan. Todd also mentioned that high activation thresholds could always be soft-forked down after the fact, and that there is little harm in delaying the fork by two or three months if stragglers won't upgrade. He added that hard forks should not be controversial for good social/political reasons anyway, and that there may be exceptions in very rare cases like security issues. Todd's "Soft Forks Are Safer Than Hard Forks" post from the previous week explains the technical risks for deploying non-controversial forks.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T03:27:09.583346+00:00