Sentences with phrase «soft forks need»

Soft forks need a majority of hash power in the network, because, if non-upgraded nodes continue to mine blocks, the blocks they mine will be rejected by the upgraded nodes.

This is why soft forks need a majority of hash power in the network.

Not exact matches

Another critical piece of information one must understand to really «get» how hard / soft forks are created is the fact that full nodes are needed to enforce consensus rules on the blockchain.

(If you're still unclear about forks, here's a Guide to Forks: Everything You Need to Know About Forks, Hard Fork and Soft forks, here's a Guide to Forks: Everything You Need to Know About Forks, Hard Fork and Soft Forks: Everything You Need to Know About Forks, Hard Fork and Soft Forks, Hard Fork and Soft Fork)

Drain the sardines and mash them well with a fork — no need to remove the bones as they are small and soft.

Add the 2 cups of chopped beets and about 1/4 cup water, cover and let steam until all of the water has cooked off and the beets are soft enough to cut with a fork (add more water to steam as needed until the beets are soft).

Once water is boiling, add mango, cover and steam for 3 - 5 minutes until easily mashable with a fork (softer mangoes will need 3 minutes, harder mangoes 5 minutes).

The most notable difference between Bitcoin Core and its recently launched competitor Bitcoin Classic is that the former plans to roll out Segregated Witness through a soft fork, while the latter wants to deploy a block - size increase through a hard fork, meaning all full nodes on the network need to switch.

Rather than a Segregated Witness soft fork, the recently launched alternative Bitcoin implementation Bitcoin Classic plans to increase Bitcoin's block size limit to 2 megabytes through a hard fork, meaning all full nodes on the network need to upgrade synchronously.

Who Supports UASF Lately, there has been a lot of talk regarding the possible activation of a User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) in order to implement the SegWit proposal without the need to reach miner consensus.

Moreover, the solution can be rolled out as a soft fork, meaning that only miners need to upgrade their software; all other nodes can do so if and when they please.

Finally, no discount at all would have slightly reduced the amount of space available in blocks because of the need to store the witness commitment (about 40 bytes) in the coinbase transaction; since the segregated witness soft fork allows miners to choose between generating segregated witness style blocks and traditional - style blocks (that can't include segregated witness transactions), this would provide a minor incentive for miners to favor traditional - style blocks.

Since drivechains do need a soft - fork protocol upgrade, the contention does make the future of drivechains a bit more uncertain.

That's because the Ethereum community favors hard forks over their softer versions when it comes to implementing much needed updates.

There are many pros and cons to deploying major feature changes as soft versus hard forks, but if we want to see SegWit safely deployed in 2017 it will need to be as a soft fork.

According to the white paper, «The TON Foundation will have a majority of votes during the first deployment phase of the TON Blockchain, which may be useful if a lot of parameters end up needing to be adjusted, or if the need arises for hard or soft forks.»

After the soft forks are updated (a process they said should be «measured in months»), the team suggested wallets providers would need to perform updates necessary for Lightning to be used, a process they acknowledged could take longer.

However, the soft fork will need the Lightning Network (and possibly other not - yet - seen scaling techniques) if it is to instil any long - term benefit on the network, for congestion will otherwise return if / when enough users adopt Bitcoin going forward.