In the past,
soft forks caused some minimal network disruption, but the risks do seem limited this time around.
Not exact matches
in theory 51 % would be enough, that would
cause a «
soft fork» where the majority of the users keeps using the new version while the minority is using the old version.
Bitcoin Cash is the realization of the «User Activated Hard
Fork» (UAHF) that was first announced as Bitmain's contingency plan in case of a chain - split caused by the BIP148 user activated soft fork (UASF)-- although the mining hardware producer has sent out mixed signals about the project si
Fork» (UAHF) that was first announced as Bitmain's contingency plan in case of a chain - split
caused by the BIP148 user activated
soft fork (UASF)-- although the mining hardware producer has sent out mixed signals about the project si
fork (UASF)-- although the mining hardware producer has sent out mixed signals about the project since.
Hard
forks and
soft forks do virtually the same thing, so Bitcoin Core argues that
soft forks are to be preferred as they do not
cause the amount of harm on the Bitcoin network as a hard
fork can potentially do since users can choose to upgrade to new features when they want to, or remain or the current Bitcoin core version that they are on.