Author: Gregory Maxwell 2015-09-30 20:15:31
Published on: 2015-09-30T20:15:31+00:00
In this email exchange, Mike Hearn and Gregory Maxwell discuss the merits of soft forks versus hard forks in implementing changes to the Bitcoin protocol. Hearn argues that BIP101's block size increase should be implemented as a soft fork because it does not require changes for SPV clients. Maxwell counters that even though it may not be a hard fork for BitcoinJ clients, other SPV clients could potentially reject blocks that violate new rules. He argues that soft forks are a more natural way to implement some changes, such as CLTV, and that they allow users to choose whether or not to adopt new rules. Additionally, soft forks can provide flexibility for those who care about certain features without forcing non-participants to adopt them. Despite potential risks of network instability, Maxwell believes that soft forks have a demonstrated track record of delivering new features with minimal problems.
Updated on: 2023-05-19T21:58:22.752237+00:00