Removing rules is a hardfork.
That includes scheduled rules like subsidy halvings, and yes, even BIP110.
Rejecting BIP110 is a contentious hardfork attempt.
And unlike softforks, hardforks need cons...
I don't have a strong view for or against BIP110, but I don't understand this type of statement and I am somewhat worried about the activation mechanism chosen through the UASF.
If most the nodes weighted by economic relevance and most of the hash power did not signal for BIP110, how could this constitute a contentious hardfork attempt, and why would it be abnormal for BIP110 to fail in this situation?
If most the nodes weighted by economic relevance and most of the hash power did not signal for BIP110, how could this constitute a contentious hardfork attempt, and why would it be abnormal for BIP110 to fail in this situation?
1
