Author: David Vorick 2015-06-20 17:26:29
Published on: 2015-06-20T17:26:29+00:00
In a discussion about hard fork proposals, Pieter Wuille argues that using a block version vote is a bad idea. He believes the purpose of a hard fork is to ask the entire community to change their full nodes to new code. Using a 95% threshold implies that the fork can happen when at least 5% of miners have not upgraded which means some full nodes have not (as miners are nodes), and in addition, means the old chain can keep growing too, confusing old non-miner nodes as well.Wuille suggests that the fork should be scheduled when one is certain nodes will have upgraded, and the risk for a fork will be gone. If everyone has upgraded, no vote is necessary, and if nodes have not, it remains risky to fork them off. He proposes using a timestamp switchover for a hard fork or adding a block voting threshold as a means to keep humans in the loop but using 100% as the threshold. Another participant in the discussion suggested adding a second fuse. After the 95% barrier has been crossed, a six-week timer starts that gives the remaining 5% time to upgrade. If they still don't upgrade, they have intentionally forked themselves from the network, and it is not something that the remaining 95% need to be concerned with. The discussion highlights the challenges of implementing hard forks and ensuring that all nodes upgrade to the new code.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T00:05:15.853137+00:00