I think that mining the same block height, but with different content isn’t enough of a reason to make a fork.
That’s because it doesn’t specify that the blocks have been mined at the same time.
but when miners mine blocks, blocks have no content yet ( or do they?), miners give content (transactions)?. by saying same block meaning same block number, that’s how I understand, maybe I am missing something?
So I think I get it, but want to confirm - is it correct that both Hard and Soft forks are Intentional rather than Accidental? That is how I understand it. Thanks
It wouldn’t if the node has different consensus then the rest of the network then it will reject blocks from the other nodes because they are not in consensus with the node in question.
Miners construct blocks before they start searching for the block hash. If they would add content after they found a hash, they would basically change the block which would mean they would have to remine it again.
1 Like
Yes soft fork and hard fork are intentional updates while accidental forks occur when two miners find a block at the same time.
When you have a fork, is it possible to have the same transaction in both blocks? Is that possible
hahah same question, by the way, the part of "loose money " was said in minute: 8:17 - 8:18 in case filip wants to go back and check 
Yes, some transactions might be included in both blocks. When the nodes on different parts find a block they are not aware that the other block even exists and what it contains. 
1 Like
Question, when a hard fork has happened how have they decided which one keeps the original brand like Bitcoin and which one gets the new name like Bitcoin Cash?
The node runner has to update the node to the required version, or remain on the original one. At the time that hard fork occurs updated nodes will switch to the new version of the chain on non updated nodes will remain in the original chain.
1 Like
Until now I was sure i to wait for only 2 confirmations… 
This means that there a little chance that I will not receive the tx if im not wait for 6 confirmation?
Awesome, thx very much
Accidental forks are actually rare (less than once a year) and for most tx I would say its safe to wait for one confirmation. If you’re buying a Lambo for example then I would rather make sure the tx is settled and will not get dropped for sure 
thx 
Your help is very appreciated
About hypothetically distinct bitcoin networks:
Suppose for some reason that the bitcoin network became separated into two or more pieces. Suppose maybe that there were a nuclear war, and all bitcoin nodes in the world were shut down except those in Australia and South America, and that these networks were unable to communicate with each other for a couple years.
I presume that these separate networks would continue to operate independently with the same original protocol that they started with, and that the bitcoin that was owned overseas simply would be lost.
But what would happen if the connection between South America and Australia were restored after a number of years? If South America’s blockchain had more proof of work, would the entire history of the blockchain in Australia after the nuclear war become stale, and all transactions sent back to the mempool? If these transactions weren’t dependent on block rewards mined in Australia, I suppose there would be a backlog, and then everyone would get their transactions back eventually. But if some of those transactions were dependent on mining rewards, wouldn’t they get rejected by the new network (since the mining rewards in Australia would disappear), and then every transaction dependent on those rewards that took place in Australia would be permanently cancelled? It seems to me in this case that the Australians may want to come up with some way of keeping their bitcoin separate from South America, or else both sides find some way to update bitcoin so that it can handle a couple years of parallel blocks.
@filip. Thank you for the instruction. I am curious to know if the BTC hardforks tha resulted in BSV and BCH are relevant to the discussion on hard and soft forks. The reason I bring this up is because you did mention that the increase in block size was considered as an alternative to segwit.
I guess if two blockchains are separated for a number of years it would be a good idea to separate them by a hard fork. That way once the connection is restored the chains will remain independent. If this would not be the case then the longest PoW always wins.
BCH was a hard fork that implemented larger blocks instead of updating to Segwit yes.
The contraction explanation made more sense to me