Pieter Wuille [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-12-18 📝 Original message:On Dec 18, 2015 2:13 AM, ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-12-18
📝 Original message:On Dec 18, 2015 2:13 AM, "sickpig at gmail.com" <sickpig at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1.75 x 0.5 + 1 x 0.5 = 1.375
>
> after six month.
>
> An hard-fork on the others side would bring 1.75 since the activation, am
I right?

Yes.

However, SW immediately gives a 1.75 capacity increase for anyone who
adopts it, after the softfork, instantly. They don't need to wait for
anyone else.

A hard fork is an orthogonal improvement, which is also needed if we don't
want to be stuck with a constant maximum ultimately.

Hardforks can however only be deployed at a time when all full node
software can reasonably have agreed to upgrade, while a softfork can be
deployed much earlier.

They are independent improvements, and we need both. I am however of the
opinion that hard forks need a much clearer consensus and much longer
rollout timeframes to be safe (see my thread on the security of softforks).

--
Pieter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151218/5a9ace37/attachment.html>;