Topic: What is soft folk and hard folk? (Read 1615 times)

Well sad that we're discussing about bitcoin but had to hide behind some wording to avoiding being moved to ..... Offtopic/Meta


If we cant pass this censorship bullshit, this forum is done. Once XT move ahead with the folk, i expect the admin team here make a public apology or this forum is just a joke then.

exactly. I'm shocked that these idiots still fail to see the comedy behind solf YOLK vs hard YOLK argument.

After reading a lot about this, here my EL5 version: A soft fork enables transactions that meet the conditions of the proposed fork but in the same blockchain, a hard fork actually forks the blockchain (actual blockchain split) and separates the transactions from one blockchain to another.
Hard forks only happen if 90% of nodes or something like that, support the client.

The difference between an soft yolk and a hard yolk is the cooking time:

In our usual understanding, "anyone can mine" is a fundamental rule of bitcoin, while we could change this rule by a softfork. So "all the old rules are still intact (after a softfork)" is not true, unless one tries to distort the meaning of "rules".

If a node is relying on the honesty of any miners, it is not a full node.

I dont want to be banned ......

You misread the OP

Soft folk are guys who listen to pop
Hard folk are guys who listen to rock and metal

I'm glad someone admits to be blind here. 

Only idiots still think Soft fork and hard fork really make a difference in chance of destroying bitcoin.

The worst idiot of all is the one who agree to censor every service or wallet that support hard fork and only allow soft fork.

The other examples are the same. They add new rules that are limiting your abilities of doing something. I think we need gmaxwell to explain what he mean by 'counting on old rules', it's really vague to me.

I'm sure you are aware of what caused that split. It was miners who didn't update their software while telling the network that they did. This 'split' wouldn't last that long if it wasn't nearly half the hashrate doing 'SPV' mining, it would've resolved pretty quickly.

Well, strictly speaking, pre-BIP66 nodes are not doing full validation as they don't validate DER strictness, I agree. But they are still validating blocks and signatures, it's far from SPV. That's a bit different than BIP16 I guess.
Ok, I see what you mean here, and I agree.

There's nothing contradictory because you deliberately ignore my other examples.


No. Anything before 0.9.5 are not safe because they are not doing full validation. You need to wait for 30 confirmations if you are using anything before 0.9.5, according to https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2015-07-04-spv-mining . The warning is STILL valid as of this writing.

In fact, what you provided as examples fits perfectly in gmaxwell's point. He didn't say you can still do anything you previously could. He said soft forks add rules that add certain limitations. The old rules are intact, but not old capabilities, which are limited by some new rules. There's nothing contradictory.

Are pre-BIP66 full nodes pretending they are doing full validation? AFAIK, they are the same full nodes as post-BIP66 ones with regards to validation.

This is NOT true.

The old rules allow me to put anything I want in coinbase but now I must put the block height as the first item. (BIP34)

The old rules allow me to format the signature in many ways but now it's heavily limited. (BIP66)

The ability to "add rules" means the ability to "add bad rules". Adding bad rules is removing "good attributes" from Bitcoin. A softfork could: a) require a centralized service to sign all blocks; b) blacklist addresses; c) burn dormant bitcoin; d) reduce the max block size to 500 bytes; and more. Are you happy with any of these?

Alternatively, with the ability to remove rules, hardfork would allow us to remove "bad rules". If someone managed to introduce bad rules with softfork, the only hope for us is to hardfork and stay away from the bad chain.

--------------------------------------------------

As a Bitcoin expert you should know this fact: full nodes not upgrading after a softfork just PRETEND they are doing full validation. They are just slightly secure than an SPV client. Miners not upgrading after a softfork are just mining fool's gold.

Having said that, I still believe softfork (with super-majority miner support) is a safer practice than hardfork because the new fork will constantly attack the old fork, and it won't create 2 sets of trading tokens.

Are you going to write a response to it?

Please do.

I wonder if you've used 'folk' instead of 'fork' in your title on purpose. If not, then I'm not surprised that so many people blindly believe whatever Mike (and others) is saying.

I'm really sad it has gone down to politics and populism - e.g. trying to win over the 'electorate', even if it requires misleading people. I'd better prefer people making really educated decisions, but we don't live in a fantasy world.

Oh really?

Then post here.... Dont bother to tell me go over reddit to read a bunch of clueless post. Dont forget to put disclaimer of who you are and you're exactly why we're forced to choose XT too

That article is unfortunately pretty misleading.  Based on the commentary on reddit I think it actively harmed some people's understanding,  you should read the responses there-- including mine.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3griiv/on_consensus_and_forks_by_mike_hearn/

Read this to understand if you're not a software developer:

https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-forks-c6a050c792e7


Don't be like "someone" who removed all doubt about him.