Author: Mike Hearn 2015-09-29 12:07:24
Published on: 2015-09-29T12:07:24+00:00
The discussion is about the difference between a softfork and hardfork and how it would make a difference to the speed at which miners upgrade. It was argued that both fork types would result in miners losing equal amounts of money and therefore, there would be no difference in incentive to upgrade. The argument of the other chain continuing forever in the case of a hard fork was also questioned. It was suggested that invalid blocks built on top of the main chain could also continue forever. There was a disagreement that a hard fork would promote faster upgrades and it was pointed out that a soft fork could be mistaken for bad luck whereas a hard fork results in a node having a different height from everyone else which can be easily detected by checking a block explorer. A comment was made that the discussion about the general desirability of soft forks seems off-topic for the concrete CLTV deployment discussion, which assumes soft forks as a deployment mechanism. However, this was deemed circular since the thread is about deployment of CLTV but the BIP assumes a particular mechanism, so pointing out problems with it is not off-topic.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T23:11:34.181771+00:00