pull down to refresh
Oh, I see what you mean. Right, if we were on BIP-110 rules and switched to Bitcoin Core rules, that would be considered a hard fork. But going from Bitcoin Core to BIP-110 would be a soft fork attempt, although a failed soft fork does behave like a hard fork from the perspective of the soft forkers (although they explicitly updated to it, so there wouldn’t be nodes left behind due to not realizing what happened). I explain it a bit more comprehensively here: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/30821/5406
reply
Thanks @Murch
Is a chain split... not a hard-fork? I have read that a 'tightening of the rules' is a 'softfork' but... if bip-110 nodes start rejecting blocks and my 3 Core nodes don't reject those same blocks
Bip-110 and Core nodes will be on 2 different networks. Is that not a hardfork? I find that knots-supporters calling it a 'soft-fork' assumes that a lot of miners join them but if they don't their chain will keep rejecting Core-compatible blocks and if miners keep building on those blocks it's a chain-split.
2 tokens and 2 networks.
Honestly I feel like Knots should just embrace this - call it Bitcoin-Pure or 'Bitcoin-Knots' with its own network and own token that way people can more transparently discuss which network they want to use and run.