Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Generalized version bits voting (bip-genvbvoting)

[Thomas Kerin <me@thomaskerin.io>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1203 bytes --]

A schism is just that: miners can't ameliorate a HF transition in the way they can censor transactions without permission. This is how miners became a convenient way to activate soft-forks. 

So while BIP9 can indicate the later censorship (a soft fork) in a way that nodes can follow (or not) a hardfork always requires nodes to upgrade to the version increasing the degrees of freedom of the system. 

Signaling is less useful here: the change is not opt-in and will require coordination; and the continuation of the chain thereafter depends on people actually running the hard-fork code, not just being aware there is something happening.


On 04/05/2017 12:08 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:

On Tuesday, 4 April 2017 20:01:51 CEST Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: 

BIP 9 provides a mechanism for having miners coordinate softforks because they can make the upgrade process smoother this way. But the same is not true of hardforks: miners are essentially irrelevant to them, and cannot make the process any smoother. 

Can you explain how miners are irrelevant if the upgrade is not a soft fork? 



-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1279 bytes --]