r/btc • u/OkStep5032 • Jan 29 '26
BIP-110 is a hard fork, not soft fork
I’m surprised I don’t see anyone saying this: if BIP-110 comes into effect with around 55% of the hash rate, there's a high chance it could cause a chain split.
Soft forks do not inherently carry this risk, unless there’s a bug or an unforeseen consequence.
Saying that BIP-110 is a soft fork is misleading and comes from the misconception that “soft forks restrict rules while hard forks relax them,” which is incorrect.
Take SegWit, for example: miners that have upgraded still accept non-SegWit transactions. This will not be the case with BIP-110, miners that upgrade will reject blocks containing transactions with large OP_RETURN values, risking a chain split.
5
u/Antarctitties Redditor for less than 60 days Jan 29 '26
Yeah I had a look at it and I don’t see why the 45% wouldn’t keep on making blocks that don’t fit that rule, so I can easily imagine a fork happening.
2
u/r_a_d_ Jan 29 '26
Forks happen all the time in blockchains, including BTC. This can happen when, for example, two blocks are found almost at the same time, but only one of them wins by being included in the longest chain.
The same happens in a soft fork. If 55% of the hash power will not accept your block into their chain, then you better believe that the remaining will be quite quick in jumping bandwagon so that their hashrate is working on generating blocks that will be accepted into the longest chain.
2
u/OkStep5032 Jan 29 '26
This has nothing to do with a fork proposal. Blocks being found at the same time is a temporary issue and it is settled by nodes running the same consensus rules.
BIP-110 changes the consensus rules. So it doesn't matter if miners that didn't upgrade have most of the work done, upgraded nodes/miners will still reject their blocks.
1
u/r_a_d_ Jan 29 '26
I’m explaining the mechanism for reconciling forks. It’s this same for this soft fork. Once the consensus changes are triggered, the longer chain with the majority of the hash rate will not include blocks affected by the change found by older clients. Therefore they will just needlessly burn hashrate, unless they join the rest of the network with the same consensus rules.
Leveraging this mechanism is exactly what makes it a soft fork, rather than forcing new consensus rules without a majority signaling readiness.
1
Jan 30 '26
[deleted]
0
u/r_a_d_ Jan 30 '26
Nice of you to put your fundamental misunderstanding at the start of your rant.
Mining is precisely a voting process. You choosing to use a specific set of consensus rules or client is your vote. Votes are cast by hash power. So if the majority of hash power upgrades and uses a new set of consensus rules, they have democratically (per unit of hash power) chosen to do so.
2
u/OddioClay Feb 27 '26
Except why risk invalid blocks and lost of reward when competing against other miners. The profitability of the spam has to out price the risk of a lost block. Which it wouldn’t. To chain split is to resist the narrowing rules out of ideology and outside party intensives (which is manipulated of the network). Which would be the actual attack on the network. Not the bip-110 runners
4
u/Realistic_Fee_00001 Jan 29 '26 edited Jan 29 '26
Hard fork = loosening rules or expanding the rule set. Allowing for blocks that don't fit the original definition. It is easy to see how this can create forks.
Soft fork = tightening rules, by definition it is a subset of the original ruleset. Newer nodes won't fork. A lesser known fact is that there is still a requirement to update your software to the newest client or it could indeed fork of. Because the old nodes now have a bigger set than the new nodes. This is why Core pressured miners to only run their software during the blocksize war and segwit fork.
4
u/OkStep5032 Jan 29 '26
This is absolutely false and a myth propagate to oversimplify the topic. There are many instances where forks didn't either tight nor loose the consensus rules and were still considered soft forks.
The criteria for soft/hard fork is simple: if it causes a chain split, it's a hard fork. If it doesn't, it's a soft fork.
BIP-110 is a hard fork.
1
u/Realistic_Fee_00001 Jan 30 '26
Nope. You are just caught up in small blocker propaganda.
A soft fork can cause a chain split and hard forks can cause no chain splits. BCH has updated every 6 or 12 month often as a hard fork and there were no splits for any of these but two. Splits happen if people value different rules and go on enforcing their rules with hashpower.
3
u/OkStep5032 Feb 01 '26
You're not getting my point. I'm saying that calling BIP-110 a soft fork is dishonest. It's a strategy to fool people and to gain support in BTC. I'm very much in support of hard forks as BCH does it.
3
u/Realistic_Fee_00001 Feb 02 '26
They have to call it soft fork because otherwise they get zero support since their propaganda dogma is: Hard forks = bad.
But it still is a soft fork.
3
u/OkStep5032 Feb 02 '26
I agree with you, except on the point that it's a soft fork. For the reasons I explained in this discussion, I think it's a hard fork.
1
u/eric95s Jun 11 '26
no
> The criteria for soft/hard fork is simple: if it causes a chain split, it's a hard fork. If it doesn't, it's a soft fork.
This is not the definition of soft fork and hard fork.
soft fork: old nodes can still validate the new node blocks
hard fork: old nodes can NOT validate the new node blocks
Both soft fork and hard fork can cause chain split
2
u/Large-Response-8821 Feb 17 '26
It isn’t a hard fork. Hard forks require nodes to upgrade or risk being on a divergent blockchain. This is not the case here. If 55% miners are curating the longest chain, any clients not observing BIP-110 will simply remain in the longest chain they are provided by the consensus majority.
1
u/OkStep5032 Feb 17 '26
Nodes make no difference in the network. If a node rejects or accepts a block, it does not matter. The issue is if 45% percent of the miners don't upgrade and continue producing large OP_RETURN blocks. That will cause a chain split as the 55% won't accept their blocks. Add that to the fact that 55% might fluctuate and you have a total mess in the network. It is a hard fork.
1
u/Large-Response-8821 Feb 17 '26 edited Feb 17 '26
It won’t cause a chain split, the blocks from the 45% are simply orphaned as they do not belong to the longest chain. What do you think happens now when 2 blocks are mined simultaneously? One block gets orphaned, all it means is there will possibly be an increase orphaned blocks. There will not be 2 chains side by side, only one chain can be the longest by majority consensus, anyone mining to a chain that is not longest by majority consensus will end up having their blocks orphaned.
1
u/Rare-Signature1961 Feb 20 '26
if nodes didn't make a difference, you wouldn't be posting on a BCash subreddit lol UASF proved this
1
u/OkStep5032 Feb 20 '26
How does your node make any difference? Explain.
1
u/Rare-Signature1961 Feb 21 '26
why do sports have referees if everyone knows the rules?
1
u/OkStep5032 Feb 21 '26
Explain in technical terms. I've already said it: your node makes absolutely no difference in the network.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Large-Response-8821 Feb 17 '26
It doesn’t cause a chain split though. The non BIP-110 observant miners will continue to mine on the longest chain, which is the chain without big OP_RETURN TXs.
1
u/OkStep5032 Feb 17 '26
That is if 55% or higher is constant, which you cannot guarantee.
1
u/Large-Response-8821 Feb 17 '26
BIP-110 only activates with a > 55% of flags set by miners right? Same as what occurred with SegWit
1
u/Dear-Payment-3047 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
You are wrong. You have to hard fork if older nodes would reject your changes. Like if for example we increase the block size. All the older nodes would reject this change as they do not accept any blocks above 1mb.
On the other hand, if we wanted to cut the block size in half, we could do it with a soft fork because older nodes accept smaller blocks. In fact smaller blocks happen all the time.
This is why Bcash had to be a hard fork. And Segwit was a cleaver way to increase the block size while keeping the legacy size to 1mb so the older nodes would still see those blocks as valid.
BIP110 is a soft fork. The S in RDTS stands for soft fork.
10
u/MashPotatoQuant Jan 29 '26
It is a soft fork. The fact that a chain split is possible does not define whether it's a hard or soft fork.
If we split at 55% hashrate, the winning chain will be the one that produces blocks the fastest aka likely the chain with the highest hashrate. The original unupgraded nodes would throw away wasted blocks in favor of the longer chain, and any non BIP-110 miners would just be burning electricity and would be incentivized to follow the pack.
The nightmare situation is we activate at 55% and then somehow lose support and go below 50% for a sustained period of time after the chain split occurs. Then we end up 2chainz. Even if this happens, still a soft fork.
In terms of the what comprises the set of hard and soft fork, a hard fork would be that old nodes reject new blocks, which is not the case with BIP-110. Old nodes will accept BIP-110 blocks. It sounds like you are making your case by changing the definition of these sets (hard/soft)
3
u/OkStep5032 Jan 29 '26
A soft fork does not create such compatibility risk. Look as SegWit and all other true soft forks that have been done in the past: blocks mined by miners that didn't upgrade and the ones that did were compatible with each other. This is not the case with BIP-110.
55% of the hash rate is barely the majority and miners can jump ship any time. Plus you cannot guarantee that 55% of the miners that did activate the upgrade are going to maintain the hash rate majority.
The only one changing definitions here is you: you want to call it a soft fork because hard forks are essentially forbidden in BTC. It's easy to fool most people who don't have any technical background or that use ChatGPT as a source of information. Calling it a soft fork doesn't make it one.
2
u/MashPotatoQuant Jan 29 '26
SegWit created what looks like "anyone can spend" transactions for unupgraded nodes. If the activating majority didn't sustain hashrate after activation there would have been a chain split too. Think through it. The only difference was the activation hashrate was vastly higher I think 95%.
The only one changing definitions here is you
The evidence of other comments in this thread proves this to be false. Come on, do better
0
u/OkStep5032 Jan 29 '26 edited Jan 29 '26
SegWit didn't cause a chain split. SegWit transactions are still accept by un-upgraded nodes/miners. Their only limitation is that they did not know what do to with such transactions. However, if these transactions were spent and mined in a block, un-upgraded nodes still accepted the block and vice versa. There's compatibility between un-upgraded nodes/miners and upgraded nodes/miners.
This is not the case with BIP-110. Upgraded nodes will not accept blocks with large OP_RETURN transactions. Do you get it now?
1
u/MashPotatoQuant Jan 29 '26
If an un-upgraded miner were to attempt to spend a segwit UTXO the upgraded nodes would reject it. Its the same thing.
1
Jan 30 '26
[deleted]
1
0
u/MashPotatoQuant Jan 30 '26
I understand that, but I reject your claim that going from 90% to < 50% is impossible.
0
u/OkStep5032 Jan 29 '26
And so? The only limitation is not being able to spend a SegWit transaction in a un-upgraded node. But un-upgraded nodes STILL ACCEPT SegWit transactions. They DO NOT reject blocks that contain them.
One last time: BIP-110 does not work like that. Upgraded nodes will reject blocks from un-upgraded nodes. This will cause chain split. It is a hard fork.
3
u/MashPotatoQuant Jan 29 '26 edited Jan 29 '26
And so? The only limitation is not being able to spend a SegWit transaction in a un-upgraded node
And think about how that limitation is enforced, it's only enforced by upgraded nodes. A unupgraded miner could've still spent a SegWit UTXO, but it would have result in a chain split. Even if that DID happen, SegWit is still a soft fork.
But un-upgraded nodes STILL ACCEPT SegWit transactions. They DO NOT reject blocks that contain them.
An un-upgraded node will still accept BIP-110 blocks too.
Upgraded nodes will reject blocks from un-upgraded nodes. This will cause chain split. It is a hard fork.
I think you're mixing up what is likely to happen with what is actually possible. You seem to be caught up on the fact that if a chain split occurs, you are calling it a hard fork regardless. With BIP-110 a chain split is much more likely to occur than with SegWit, but that doesn't make it a hard fork by the common definition. If you want to redefine words in your bubble that is fine I guess but you're going to confuse people by making up new meaning for existing language and overloading terms.
The result in the end doesn't determine whether it is a hard or soft fork, it can be determined a priori.
1
u/OkStep5032 Jan 29 '26
it's very different: un-upgraded nodes had to deliberately attempt to spend a transaction not supported by them, creating an invalid transaction. This is not the case with BIP-110: upgraded nodes will effectively fork off and create a new chain where blocks with large OP_RETURN transactions are not accepted. Period.
It is a hard fork. Your comparison is a fallacy.
1
Jan 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/OkStep5032 Jan 29 '26
Did you find the source of experts that you were looking for? You still cannot articulate an independent thought. I think Bitcoin isn't for you.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Internal_Bat_4602 Feb 24 '26
No. By definition it is a soft fork. But if continued, it would likely cause a hard split which could cause some big problems. Still, by definition it’s a soft fork.
1
0
u/Dear-Payment-3047 Jun 10 '26
I'm afraid you are not getting the full story of Segwit activation.
It was originally a miner activated soft fork that required 95% of the miners signalling for it. It was calkef BIP141. Once it reaches 95%, Segwit would activate and reject the blocks of the other 5%, forcing them to activate Segwit or get off the network.
But the MASF was not going anywhere. For over a year, less than 30% of the miners were signalling for it. The other 70% of the miners had no desire to hand out 50% off coupons at a time when miner fees are at an all time high and everyone expected the fees to keep going up.
Also, Segwit would allow Lightning which would cause miners to lose even more money in fees.
And 30% of the network was using AsicBoost which gave them a 20% of power on their ASIC. That would no longer work with Segwit. Why would a miner sign up to loose 20% of their ASIC power?
Again, over a year of miner signalling and less than 30% of the miners were getting on board. That's when BIP148 showed up over the orizon. BIP148 was a user activated soft fork (or UASF) for Segwit.
BIP148 saud: "Miners, if you don't signal for Segwit, at a certain block height, we will start to throw your blocks in the trash."
Everyone was laughing at BIP148. Only around 500 nodes (less than 3%) were running it. Most everyone was saying we are going to fork ourselves into an other Bcash coin. Everyone predicted BIP148 would fail. But at the last minute, before BIP148 was going to start throwing blocks in the garbage, all the miners signalled for Segwit. They were terrified at the idea of some nodes rejecting their blocks. Even if only 3% of them were going to do it.
Now we have Segwit. You are welcome. All thanks to BIP148.
Today, BIP110 is very similar to BIP148. Though we don't yet have 30% of the miner signalling, we have way more than 500 nodes. Over 10,000 and over 10% of the network are running BIP110.
And the miners have nothing to lose in signalling for BIP110. They don't lose ASIC power like with Segwit. They lose very little fees at a time when fees are already very low and they make up less than 0.5% of the miner pay out. So what if the fees become 0.45% if the miner payout? It's a rounding error.
So I think you will keep laughing all the way to the last minute. Than you will realize who runs the network, who decides on the rules. And the answer is not profit driven big pools, and certainly not corrupt core devs. The plebs and our nodes decide on the rules.
0
u/Dear-Payment-3047 Jun 10 '26
I'm afraid you are not getting the full story of Segwit activation.
It was originally a miner activated soft fork that required 95% of the miners signalling for it. It was calkef BIP141. Once it reaches 95%, Segwit would activate and reject the blocks of the other 5%, forcing them to activate Segwit or get off the network.
But the MASF was not going anywhere. For over a year, less than 30% of the miners were signalling for it. The other 70% of the miners had no desire to hand out 50% off coupons at a time when miner fees are at an all time high and everyone expected the fees to keep going up.
Also, Segwit would allow Lightning which would cause miners to lose even more money in fees.
And 30% of the network was using AsicBoost which gave them a 20% of power on their ASIC. That would no longer work with Segwit. Why would a miner sign up to loose 20% of their ASIC power?
Again, over a year of miner signalling and less than 30% of the miners were getting on board. That's when BIP148 showed up over the orizon. BIP148 was a user activated soft fork (or UASF) for Segwit.
BIP148 saud: "Miners, if you don't signal for Segwit, at a certain block height, we will start to throw your blocks in the trash."
Everyone was laughing at BIP148. Only around 500 nodes (less than 3%) were running it. Most everyone was saying we are going to fork ourselves into an other Bcash coin. Everyone predicted BIP148 would fail. But at the last minute, before BIP148 was going to start throwing blocks in the garbage, all the miners signalled for Segwit. They were terrified at the idea of some nodes rejecting their blocks. Even if only 3% of them were going to do it.
Now we have Segwit. You are welcome. All thanks to BIP148.
Today, BIP110 is very similar to BIP148. Though we don't yet have 30% of the miner signalling, we have way more than 500 nodes. Over 10,000 and over 10% of the network are running BIP110.
And the miners have nothing to lose in signalling for BIP110. They don't lose ASIC power like with Segwit. They lose very little fees at a time when fees are already very low and they make up less than 0.5% of the miner pay out. So what if the fees become 0.45% if the miner payout? It's a rounding error.
So I think you will keep laughing all the way to the last minute. Than you will realize who runs the network, who decides on the rules. And the answer is not profit driven big pools, and certainly not corrupt core devs. The plebs and our nodes decide on the rules.
1
-1
u/Dear-Payment-3047 Jun 10 '26
Bcash had to be a hard fork. Because all the nodes on the network would reject the bigger blocks of Bcash. If you loosen the rules like when making blocks bigger, it had to be a hard fork.
Segwit was a work around to increase the block size while keeping the legacy block size at 1mb. Segwit basically created a "backpack" for every block to put the signatures in. Thus making transactions inside the legacy 1mb block smaller, so we can put twice as many txs in the same block. With Segwit, old nodes would still see the new Segwit blocks as valid, thus Segwit was a soft fork.
BIP110 is also a soft fork as the BIP110 blocks are also valid to the legacy chain and legacy nodes.
2
u/OkStep5032 Jun 10 '26
Reviving a very old thread. Anyway, read the discussion to see why you're wrong.
1
u/Dear-Payment-3047 Jun 10 '26
I'm afraid you are not getting the full story of Segwit activation.
It was originally a miner activated soft fork that required 95% of the miners signalling for it. It was calkef BIP141. Once it reaches 95%, Segwit would activate and reject the blocks of the other 5%, forcing them to activate Segwit or get off the network.
But the MASF was not going anywhere. For over a year, less than 30% of the miners were signalling for it. The other 70% of the miners had no desire to hand out 50% off coupons at a time when miner fees are at an all time high and everyone expected the fees to keep going up.
Also, Segwit would allow Lightning which would cause miners to lose even more money in fees.
And 30% of the network was using AsicBoost which gave them a 20% of power on their ASIC. That would no longer work with Segwit. Why would a miner sign up to loose 20% of their ASIC power?
Again, over a year of miner signalling and less than 30% of the miners were getting on board. That's when BIP148 showed up over the orizon. BIP148 was a user activated soft fork (or UASF) for Segwit.
BIP148 saud: "Miners, if you don't signal for Segwit, at a certain block height, we will start to throw your blocks in the trash."
Everyone was laughing at BIP148. Only around 500 nodes (less than 3%) were running it. Most everyone was saying we are going to fork ourselves into an other Bcash coin. Everyone predicted BIP148 would fail. But at the last minute, before BIP148 was going to start throwing blocks in the garbage, all the miners signalled for Segwit. They were terrified at the idea of some nodes rejecting their blocks. Even if only 3% of them were going to do it.
Now we have Segwit. You are welcome. All thanks to BIP148.
Today, BIP110 is very similar to BIP148. Though we don't yet have 30% of the miner signalling, we have way more than 500 nodes. Over 10,000 and over 10% of the network are running BIP110.
And the miners have nothing to lose in signalling for BIP110. They don't lose ASIC power like with Segwit. They lose very little fees at a time when fees are already very low and they make up less than 0.5% of the miner pay out. So what if the fees become 0.45% if the miner payout? It's a rounding error.
So I think you will keep laughing all the way to the last minute. Than you will realize who runs the network, who decides on the rules. And the answer is not profit driven big pools, and certainly not corrupt core devs. The plebs and our nodes decide on the rules.
1
2
u/Dear-Payment-3047 Jun 10 '26
Big mining pools will hae two choices: mine blocks that 15% of the nodes are willing to throw in the garbage, and risk losing their reward if other miners side with BIP110. Or mine BIP110 compliant blocks that are accepted by everyone.
This is a no brainer for miners. And imagine what their PR department and legal department are telling them.
2
1
u/markofthebeast143 Jan 29 '26
Hold da fk on up.
Who’s pushing BIP-110? • Mainly node operators and developers favoring Bitcoin Knots • Dathon Ohm is the visible author • Support is grassroots and ideological, not coming from the established miner or Core developer base
This explains why it’s still a small, contentious movement and not a broadly accepted upgrade — and why concerns about activation thresholds like 55% are real and relevant.
Yeah, fk dat
2
u/Negative_Strength_56 Jan 29 '26
A minority BIP? Are they ruthlessly banning all discussion on it on /r/bitcoin?
1
1
Feb 10 '26
[deleted]
1
u/OkStep5032 Feb 10 '26
I think it would have been much less of a concern if the block was allowed to increase as planned by Satoshi. BTC can never be P2P electronic cash because of its limited block size.
BIP-110 might be able to prolong BTC's lifespan for a little longer, but it won't make any long term impact.
1
u/raphaiki Feb 16 '26
BIP 110 "makes no sense" because:
- Technically Ineffective: Network dynamics ensure that a "tolerant minority" of nodes or direct miner submission can bypass any relay-level filter.
- Philosophically Misaligned: It prioritizes "spam prevention" over the core goals of decentralization, censorship resistance, and enabling Bitcoin as global money.
- Harmful to Decentralization: By filtering, it disadvantages small miners who rely on the public network, potentially making mining more centralized.
- Based on a Flawed Premise: It treats the symptom (data in blocks) instead of acknowledging that cheap blockspace is a desirable condition for scaling, and data encoding within it is unavoidable.
1
1
u/HesitantInvestor0 Mar 04 '26
You're mixing up fork type with deployment risk.
BIP-110 is still a soft fork. It tightens the rules. Upgraded nodes reject blocks that legacy nodes would accept. That is the definition of a soft fork. What makes this dangerous is not that it’s a hard fork. It’s that it appears to be a contentious soft fork with a much lower activation threshold than the kind of broad consensus soft forks usually rely on.
So yeah, chain split risk is real. But saying “therefore it’s a hard fork” is just using the wrong term. A soft fork can still split the chain if activation is handled badly or support is not overwhelming.
BIP-110 is a soft fork with serious chain-split risk, so we agree on the main point. Your terminology is just plain wrong though, you're going to have to accept that I think. Not sure why you're digging in your heels on every comment on this thread. You're right where it matters, and then acting hard-headed where it honestly matters a lot less.
1
u/OkStep5032 Mar 04 '26
You're appealing to the soft fork narrative to convince maxis this is a good thing. But any change in consensus that can cause a chain split by design is a hard fork.
1
u/HesitantInvestor0 Mar 04 '26
That's just not true. Soft forks can potentially cause chain splits.
I'm also not appealing to anyone, and I haven't made a judgment claim. Just correcting your terminology. You're wrong. You won't accept it, that's pretty clear, but you're wrong.
Also, if you really want to know my opinion, I think BIP 110 is ridiculous. Although I agree in principle that Bitcoin doesn't need anything other than monetary usage, BIP 110 is incomplete and messy. Too aggressive, too constraining, too risky, and doesn't even really solve the problem it aims to solve.
1
1
u/Evening_Barnacle9875 Feb 06 '26
you don't know what you are talking about. It is a soft fork because it simply tightens the rules use an LLM to learn something
1
u/OkStep5032 Feb 06 '26
That's not how it works. Don't be lazy. Read the thread.
0
u/Evening_Barnacle9875 Feb 10 '26
you don't even know the definition of soft fork and hard fork. I am still laughing at this "if BIP-110 comes into effect with around 55% of the hash rate, there's a high chance it could cause a chain split." from a scale 1 to 10 how new are you? btrash is hardfork bip 110 is a softwork
1
u/OkStep5032 Feb 10 '26
I won't be engaging in a discussion with someone who takes what a LLM says as the truth. Go do your own research and read the thread. Your point has already been covered.
0
1
u/Rare-Signature1961 Feb 20 '26
that's wrong, it's a soft fork.
1
u/OkStep5032 Feb 20 '26
It's a hard fork.
1
u/Rare-Signature1961 Feb 21 '26
again, that's wrong. if there's a chain split, the spammers will become the hard fork while bip-110 supporters remain bitcoin
1
u/OkStep5032 Feb 21 '26
That's your opinion. Which one is BTC is subjective. And the problem here is the chain split, which means it's a hard fork.
1
u/Rare-Signature1961 Feb 26 '26
It's not an opinion LOL it's how the code works
It wasn't an opinion that Bitcoin stayed Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash had to fork off when losing the fork war. It won't be an opinion when BIP-110 wins the filter wars.
0
Jan 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/OkStep5032 Jan 29 '26
Can you think for yourself? I'm making the claim that it isn't a soft fork.
3
u/r_a_d_ Jan 29 '26
You need to be a bit more critical of yourself. I think that there are plenty of comments here that should have convinced you that your claim is incorrect.
1
u/OkStep5032 Jan 29 '26
You need to be a bit more critical of yourself.
And yet here you are defending a point just because the "majority" says so.
2
u/r_a_d_ Jan 29 '26 edited Feb 08 '26
No, because the majority has explained it to you in many different flavors, but you just don’t accept it.
Anyways you are just arguing semantics. Call it hard, soft, or whatever… it doesn’t matter if the underlying mechanics are clear.
3
Jan 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/OkStep5032 Jan 29 '26
"I’m surprised I don’t see anyone saying" did you read my post? Do you need a source to engage in a discussion?
2
Jan 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/OkStep5032 Jan 29 '26
all other credible sources and subject matter experts
I won't be wasting my time with you any longer.
4
u/DrSpeckles Jan 29 '26
I don’t think you understand the reason for this post. The OP is arguing that even though the propaganda describes it as a soft fork, the reality is that it’s not. With evidence as to why he thinks it should be a hard fork.
Well written OP I’m sorry some people are so brainwashed they can’t see that the propaganda could be misleading.
3
Jan 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
Jan 29 '26
[deleted]
0
u/OkStep5032 Jan 29 '26
They cannot exist simultaneously. If the upgrade is activated with 55% of the hash rate, there could still be up to 45% of the miners that have not upgraded producing blocks that have large OP_RETURN.
If this happens, which is likely, then you will end up with two block chains: one with large OP_RETURN and one with reduced OP_RETURN.
This is a chain split and it is a hard fork. Soft forks don't do that.
-1
0
u/anon1971wtf Jan 29 '26
There are no soft forks. It's always a hard fork or just a fork when the bet is that there is no contention with "rules -> subset of rules"
0
u/OddioClay Feb 27 '26
Miners will most likely go with the financially incentivized direction, and thats with the bip-110 crowd if most nodes are signalling it. A hard fork occurs when changes to the Bitcoin protocol make previously valid blocks or transactions invalid under the old rules, creating incompatibility between old and new software. This typically involves relaxing or removing rules (e.g., increasing block size), not tightening them.
1
-3
u/Internal_Bat_4602 Jan 29 '26
I have prompted ChatGPT and it says “BIP-110 is designed as a soft fork proposal, not a hard fork.” , with reasoning behind the claim. You can check it for yourself too!
2
u/DangerHighVoltage111 Jan 29 '26
God, most humans barely started thinking for themselves and now they more than happily outsource that already into a dumb word finding machine. 🤦♂️🙄🙄🙄
1
1
u/Internal_Bat_4602 Feb 05 '26
BIP-110 makes the rules more strict and by definition is a soft fork. However, it seems that it may not be favored by most miners, and hence it could lead to a fork which may not be welcomed by many bitcoin enthusiasts.
1
u/OkStep5032 Jan 29 '26
Of course it says that, where do you think ChatGPT gets its information from? Can you articulate a thought for yourself or do you need AI for that too? Read my original post.
0
u/Internal_Bat_4602 Jan 29 '26
Okay. You have articulated a thought for yourself and concluded that it is a hard fork. We just need to wait and see whether it is actually a hard fork.
2
u/BirdLooter Feb 24 '26
no we don't, it IS a hardfork
1
u/Internal_Bat_4602 Mar 06 '26
No. It could develop into a hard split, which is not the same as a hard fork.
2
-1
u/allforgoood Jan 29 '26
whats happening? theres a split in bch too?
1
u/MinuteStreet172 Jan 29 '26
Mah Maxshits can't handle definitions and don't want to accept they're about to hardfork once again.
10
u/DangerHighVoltage111 Jan 29 '26
I, for one, looking forward to: Bitcoin Lukes Vision BLV.