No, because now there are way too many people invested in bitcoin, including institutions. 
The old one was an attempt to make it more institution-friendly and pleb-hostile, with bigger blocks. That was the last ditch effort to do this, after this institutions aped in on the chain as it exists, and they have billions in it now. Forks would jeopardize not only the billions they have, but the many more billions they have projected to still gain from it. 
Business hates insecurity (that is, introduced from the outside; it loves the insecurity it creates and exploits it for its own gain, like wars). But introducing an insecurity like this now threatens their revenue projections.

SwearyDoctor

bigger blocks will just make the spam cheaper. I'm going with it won't happen. but who knows. 

I think yes simply because of the cost of tx fees, but then I say no because.look at Bitcoin cash..I'm.torn. 

AJ1992

> But soft forks are hard forks and hard forks are soft forks
> For example, how hard was BCH fork on BTC? How hard was Taproot and SegWit on Bitcoin?

We have definitions what counts as a soft fork vs hard fork. BCH was a hard fork since they are no longer part of our chain. Taproot and SegWit were soft forks since old nodes can still sync to the same chain as new nodes.

> A hardfork is a change to the bitcoin protocol that makes previously invalid blocks/transactions valid, and therefore requires all users to upgrade.
>
> Any alteration to bitcoin which changes the block structure (including block hash), difficulty rules, or increases the set of valid transactions is a hardfork. However, some of these changes can be implemented by having the new transaction appear to older clients as a pay-to-anybody transaction (of a special form), and getting the miners to agree to reject blocks including the pay-to-anybody transaction unless the transaction validates under the new rules. This is known as a softfork.

-- https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hardfork

Therefore, I would say hard forks are not _forward_ compatible (old nodes don't see the new chain as valid) while soft forks are (old nodes see the chain as valid - even though they might not fully understand what's going on there).

> trying to take away some of the stigma of a hard fork

What kind of stigma? That bitcoin hard forks are taboo?

This is slightly off topic. But soft forks are hard forks and hard forks are soft forks

For example, how hard was BCH fork on BTC? How hard was Taproot and SegWit on Bitcoin?

trying to take away some of the stigma of a hard fork

faithandcredit

I’m sure there will be hard forks, but Bitcoin will always be this chain. The same way BCH is not BTC.

No hard forks are required

FlashYellow

I am interested if people would want to bet on this. I don't think there will be a hardfork (for whatever reason) but what do I know, right? I just wouldn't bet a lot on 

 outcome at the moment since I didn't do much research. This might change though.

All I know is that I currently agree a lot with 

You are painting a grim picture. Can you give a little more detail about the extent of vc funding?

oracle

Inspired by [this post](https://stacker.news/items/365034) from @jimmysong.

I am interested if people would want to bet on this. I don't think there will be a hardfork (for whatever reason) but what do I know, right? I just wouldn't bet a lot on _any_ outcome at the moment since I didn't do much research. This might change though. 

All I know is that I currently agree a lot with @siggy47:

> You are painting a grim picture. Can you give a little more detail about the extent of vc funding?

-- [#365045](https://stacker.news/items/365045) 
