Author: Dave Scotese 2015-10-05 20:54:38
Published on: 2015-10-05T20:54:38+00:00
The author of this context prefers hard forks over soft forks due to the complexity introduced by the latter. A post made by Gregory on Linux Foundation's mailing list explained that a non-upgraded miner would produce invalid blocks forever until it is shut down and upgraded in case of a hard fork, while the same outcome is not guaranteed for a soft fork. The main benefit of a soft fork is that it allows participants to keep participating even if they aren't vigilant enough to notice and upgrade. According to Gregory, soft forks radically lower the cost of deployment, prevent an industry-wide flag day, and encourage software diversity. However, the author believes that the complexity of soft forks can be minimized with waiting periods and that the promotion of software diversity offered by soft forks can mess with fungibility.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T23:52:19.848270+00:00