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.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
