4 ms·

IMHO such planned improvements shouldn't be called hard forks, it's a kind misleading for folks outside cryptocurrencies.

barkingcat 9y ago
But it is a hard fork, termed that way by the organization that is the custodian of the ethereum network. It is only misleading if people outside cryptocurrencies misrepresent what a hard fork means.
- socrates1024 9y ago
  Ethereum foundation is not the custodian of the network. This is a debatable point, since it's not perfectly clear what that would mean. Ethereum Foundation doesn't own the miners or the validating nodes on the network, and can't control who joins or what software they run. Like other development teams, they can propose and try to drum up support for upgrades, which they've been successful at so far. Detractors of Ethereum would prefer to view the Foundation as having much greater influence over the network, since that would mean it's less centralized. Proponents of Ethereum on the other hand would say Ethereum Foundation's role is similar to that of Bitcoin Core, except the divisiveness hasn't set in yet (or in the case of Ethereum Classic, opposing factions split off before it got bad).
  - mccoyspace 9y ago
    The Ethereum Foundation owns and controls the trademarks of Ethereum. While they cannot dictate the code the various participants on the network run, they get to explicitly decide which version of the code gets to be called "Ethereum". That's how they maintain control.
    - notsofastbuddy 9y ago
      There's a good chance that the trademark is no longer enforceable due to their failure to apply enforce it against Ethereum Classic. There has been quite a bit of discussion about this within the community.
      - rocqua 9y ago
        Who should they have sued to enforce their trademark in the case of Ethereum Classic? Unless the argument is for genericization as opposed to failure to enforce, I don't understand.
    - xorcist 9y ago
      The also own a lot of eth, directly and through their members private holdings. Keep in mind that Ethererum is mostly pre-mined.
  - kbody 9y ago
    Slight gripe: I'm pretty sure they own a lot of validating nodes.
- dmix 9y ago
  Maybe calling it a "preplanned hardfork" is the better idea then, as that seems to be a critical difference.
wyager 9y ago
“Hard fork” has a precise technical definition.
- runeks 9y ago
  (Which is that if all nodes don't upgrade, a chain fork will occur)
  - pietjepuk88 9y ago
    Although not guaranteed, a soft fork can still result in a (lasting) chain split. Especially in the case of Bitcoin (which has slow difficulty adjustment), if the hash rate of the SegWit miners was lower than that of the old miners, the legacy chain could have easily prevailed/survived. It's a game of chance (read: race) right after the fork though, with the new nodes "winning" as soon as they generate a longer chain than the old nodes. This becomes ever more likely of course with a higher percentage of the combined hash rate.
jackschultz 9y ago
Very much agree. Hard fork has the implication of people disagreeing to the point where two things go in the opposite direction. Whereas this is just improvement for the future. Using the term hard fork is fine, but throw "update" in the phrase to make it sound positive.
- stale2002 9y ago
  I mean, you argument is that we should all lie about what the "upgrade/hardfork" is, because the truth could cause controversy. This change is not backward compatible. Therefore it is a hardfork. Full stop.
  - organsnyder 9y ago
    To many familiar with open source, "fork" implies some sort of intractable difference: personality, legal, technical decision, etc. "Incompatible change" seems more accurate, at least based on terms I'm used to hearing.
  - meirelles 9y ago
    I think it's not about lying, but very often software upgrades are not backward compatible, in that case, everybody should upgrade, that's all. It is probably more intuitive concept for the mainstream market than saying "a hard fork is coming soon".
quirkot 9y ago
Agreed, "schism" is a better term in this instance
siliconviking 9y ago
Could this result in ETH splitting up into two currencies again, like it did last year? If so, there will be tax consequences / realized gains for those who sell out of the version they don't want to hold... further complicating things.
- SimonPStevens 9y ago
  Almost certainly not. The expected outcome is that everyone will update their software, and the old fork will die. Unlike last year this is not a controversial fork. It's just a planned part of the network upgrade process. No groups are planning to boycott the fork. (It's futher enforced by code in the old fork that will cause it to die shortly, so even if a group of people wanted to keep running the old fork, they would actually have to hard fork it themselves to remove the 'ice age' anyway. So it would have to be a concious act, rather than just people forgetting to upgrade)
pietjepuk88 9y ago
This is quite clear terminology in cryptoworld, although I can understand why people are a bit confused with the events that unfolded in August. A hard fork is any fork where new nodes produce blocks that old nodes do not accept (and vice versa). A soft fork is one where new nodes produce blocks that old nodes accept, but not the other way around (e.g. new nodes reject blocks made by old nodes). That's it. So this _is_ a hard fork, albeit not a very contentious one. And it _will_ result in a chain split, with the minority chain probably having low activity/worth due to (1) lack of support (2) the ice age which will increase block times to slowly kill it (and that it itself has to be hard forked to stay alive).

barkingcat 9y ago

But it is a hard fork, termed that way by the organization that is the custodian of the ethereum network. It is only misleading if people outside cryptocurrencies misrepresent what a hard fork means.

socrates1024 9y ago
Ethereum foundation is not the custodian of the network. This is a debatable point, since it's not perfectly clear what that would mean. Ethereum Foundation doesn't own the miners or the validating nodes on the network, and can't control who joins or what software they run. Like other development teams, they can propose and try to drum up support for upgrades, which they've been successful at so far. Detractors of Ethereum would prefer to view the Foundation as having much greater influence over the network, since that would mean it's less centralized. Proponents of Ethereum on the other hand would say Ethereum Foundation's role is similar to that of Bitcoin Core, except the divisiveness hasn't set in yet (or in the case of Ethereum Classic, opposing factions split off before it got bad).
- mccoyspace 9y ago
  The Ethereum Foundation owns and controls the trademarks of Ethereum. While they cannot dictate the code the various participants on the network run, they get to explicitly decide which version of the code gets to be called "Ethereum". That's how they maintain control.
  - notsofastbuddy 9y ago
    There's a good chance that the trademark is no longer enforceable due to their failure to apply enforce it against Ethereum Classic. There has been quite a bit of discussion about this within the community.
    - rocqua 9y ago
      Who should they have sued to enforce their trademark in the case of Ethereum Classic? Unless the argument is for genericization as opposed to failure to enforce, I don't understand.
  - xorcist 9y ago
    The also own a lot of eth, directly and through their members private holdings. Keep in mind that Ethererum is mostly pre-mined.
- kbody 9y ago
  Slight gripe: I'm pretty sure they own a lot of validating nodes.
dmix 9y ago
Maybe calling it a "preplanned hardfork" is the better idea then, as that seems to be a critical difference.

wyager 9y ago

“Hard fork” has a precise technical definition.

runeks 9y ago
(Which is that if all nodes don't upgrade, a chain fork will occur)
- pietjepuk88 9y ago
  Although not guaranteed, a soft fork can still result in a (lasting) chain split. Especially in the case of Bitcoin (which has slow difficulty adjustment), if the hash rate of the SegWit miners was lower than that of the old miners, the legacy chain could have easily prevailed/survived. It's a game of chance (read: race) right after the fork though, with the new nodes "winning" as soon as they generate a longer chain than the old nodes. This becomes ever more likely of course with a higher percentage of the combined hash rate.

jackschultz 9y ago

Very much agree. Hard fork has the implication of people disagreeing to the point where two things go in the opposite direction. Whereas this is just improvement for the future. Using the term hard fork is fine, but throw "update" in the phrase to make it sound positive.

stale2002 9y ago
I mean, you argument is that we should all lie about what the "upgrade/hardfork" is, because the truth could cause controversy. This change is not backward compatible. Therefore it is a hardfork. Full stop.
- organsnyder 9y ago
  To many familiar with open source, "fork" implies some sort of intractable difference: personality, legal, technical decision, etc. "Incompatible change" seems more accurate, at least based on terms I'm used to hearing.
- meirelles 9y ago
  I think it's not about lying, but very often software upgrades are not backward compatible, in that case, everybody should upgrade, that's all. It is probably more intuitive concept for the mainstream market than saying "a hard fork is coming soon".

quirkot 9y ago

Agreed, "schism" is a better term in this instance

siliconviking 9y ago

Could this result in ETH splitting up into two currencies again, like it did last year? If so, there will be tax consequences / realized gains for those who sell out of the version they don't want to hold... further complicating things.

SimonPStevens 9y ago
Almost certainly not. The expected outcome is that everyone will update their software, and the old fork will die. Unlike last year this is not a controversial fork. It's just a planned part of the network upgrade process. No groups are planning to boycott the fork. (It's futher enforced by code in the old fork that will cause it to die shortly, so even if a group of people wanted to keep running the old fork, they would actually have to hard fork it themselves to remove the 'ice age' anyway. So it would have to be a concious act, rather than just people forgetting to upgrade)

pietjepuk88 9y ago

This is quite clear terminology in cryptoworld, although I can understand why people are a bit confused with the events that unfolded in August. A hard fork is any fork where new nodes produce blocks that old nodes do not accept (and vice versa). A soft fork is one where new nodes produce blocks that old nodes accept, but not the other way around (e.g. new nodes reject blocks made by old nodes). That's it. So this _is_ a hard fork, albeit not a very contentious one. And it _will_ result in a chain split, with the minority chain probably having low activity/worth due to (1) lack of support (2) the ice age which will increase block times to slowly kill it (and that it itself has to be hard forked to stay alive).