developers, the term "fork" has another meaning, adding confusion to the
@ -1776,7 +1776,7 @@ partitioned network will make it so that the miners operating on
separate consensus rules won't likely receive each other's blocks, as
they are connected to two separate ((("software forks", startref="software-fork")))((("network forks", startref="network-fork")))((("mining forks", startref="mining-fork")))((("chain forks", startref="chain-fork")))((("consensus rules", "hard forks", "types of", startref="consensus-hard-fork-type")))((("forks", "hard forks", "types of", startref="forks-hard-type")))((("hard forks", "types of", startref="hard-forks-type")))networks.
==== Diverging Miners and Difficulty
===== Diverging miners and difficulty
As miners ((("consensus rules", "hard forks", "difficulty and", id="consensus-hard-fork-difficult")))((("forks", "hard forks", "difficulty and", id="forks-hard-difficult")))((("hard forks", "difficulty and", id="hard-forks-difficult")))((("difficulty", "hard forks and", id="difficulty-hardfork")))diverge into mining two different chains, the
hashing power is split between the chains. The mining power can be split
@ -1808,7 +1808,7 @@ or approximately 10 weeks to mine. Assuming a fixed capacity per block,
this will also result in a reduction of transaction capacity by a factor
of 5, as there are fewer blocks per hour available to record transactions.
==== Contentious Hard Forks
===== Contentious hard forks
This is ((("consensus rules", "hard forks", "contentious forks")))((("forks", "hard forks", "contentious forks")))((("hard forks", "contentious forks")))((("contentious hard forks")))the dawn of the development of software
for decentralized consensus. Just as other innovations in development changed both the methods
@ -1875,7 +1875,7 @@ is a soft fork because a transaction that is valid under BIP65 is also
valid on any client that is not implementing (ignorant of) BIP65. To
the old clients, the script contains an NOP code, which is((("consensus rules", "soft forks", "explained", startref="consensus-soft-explain")))((("forks", "soft forks", "explained", startref="fork-soft-explain")))((("soft forks", "explained", startref="soft-fork-explain"))) ignored.
==== Criticisms of Soft Forks
===== Criticisms of soft forks
Soft forks ((("consensus rules", "soft forks", "criticisms of", id="consensus-soft-critic")))((("forks", "soft forks", "criticisms of", id="fork-soft-critic")))((("soft forks", "criticisms of", id="soft-fork-critic")))based on the NOP opcodes are
relatively uncontroversial. The NOP opcodes were placed in Bitcoin
@ -1908,7 +1908,7 @@ fork that had to be reversed because of a bug would almost certainly
lead to loss of funds.
[[softforksignaling]]
=== Soft Fork Signaling with Block Version
===== Soft fork signaling with block version
Since soft forks allow
unmodified clients to continue to operate within consensus, one
@ -1918,7 +1918,7 @@ all miners enforce the new rules, there's no risk of unmodified
nodes accepting a block that upgraded nodes would reject.
===== Speedy trial: Fail fast or succeed eventually
Although ((("consensus rules", "soft forks", "speedy trial activation", id="consensus-soft-speed")))((("forks", "soft forks", "speedy trial activation", id="fork-soft-speed")))((("soft forks", "speedy trial activation", id="soft-fork-speed")))((("speedy trial activation", id="speed-trial")))((("activation (soft forks)", "speedy trial", id="activation-speed")))BIP9 by itself did not seem to result in the activation of
segwit despite widespread support for the proposal, it was unclear to
@ -2154,7 +2154,7 @@ a clear success. Others were still disappointed that BIP8 wasn't used.
It's not clear whether or not speedy trial will be used again for a
Consensus software((("consensus rules", "software development")))((("software development for consensus rules")))((("forks", "consensus rule software development"))) continues to evolve, and there is much
discussion on the various mechanisms for changing the consensus rules.