Author: Mike Hearn 2014-10-08 10:15:02
Published on: 2014-10-08T10:15:02+00:00
The author of the given text argues that soft forks should be preferred over hard forks, as once a hard fork is planned, discussions begin about what else to add to the change. This leads to an increase in the frequency of hard forks. To minimize this frequency, the author suggests that hard forks should only be considered when the change being made actually requires one.However, the author notes that soft forks can also be disruptive as everyone who needs a correct node must upgrade on time. Therefore, there may still be a desire to roll out multiple changes at once, regardless of how it affects older nodes.Overall, the author's opinion is that if a soft fork works for the intended change, it should be preferred over a hard fork to avoid unnecessary disruptions and frequency of hard forks.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T02:51:44.326535+00:00