Came here for exact same question
Do we need to have more than 51% of the hash power in order to have a hard fork?
If yes then how do they coordinate it?
Thanks
You donât need 51% of the hash power with 1% hash power you can split the chain and create a hard fork.
Hello,
I have a question regarding the lecture video on hard forks.
If most of the network accepts the update to say for example start adding 2MB blocks to the blockchain and only a minority still has the old rules, then certainly it would mean that more miners are now beginning to add blocks up to 2MB to the blockchain than the minority who are adding blocks up to 1MB only.
This leads me to think that the longer blockchain after the update would be from the majority that have accepted the new update.
Hence, shouldnât the minority of the nodes still adding blocks up to 1MB have their blocks discarded and become stale blocks, why continue with two versions of the blockchain???
Was this before the rule that the blockchain with the longest POW is the valid blockchain??? If so, then the forking makes sense.
Please explain this!
Thank you in advance for your answers and help!
The fork happened accidentally or intentionally, an accidental fork occurs when two miners calculate a hash almost at the same time. These hash results in the creation of two blocks instead of a default block that spread in the network, and The network nodes will accept the blockchain with the longest chain(POW). A hard fork is an intentional fork intended to permanently change the protocol cryptocurrency and it requires the nodes to update the software. if you take your example let say blocks of size 2MB minded by miners that have updated the software and create a fork, let say that fork has the longest chain but this longest chain of blocks of size 2MB is invalid for the nodes that havenât been updated the protocol So they canât choose it over their chain unless the nodes update the protocol.
@filip
in the hard fork video, ~8:20, you said âhard fork update makes previously invalid blocks validâ, but in the examples given where are the previously invalid blocks? did you mean blocks that wouldâve previously been invalid?
edit: yes, after the latter part of your next video, i beleive thatâs exactly what you meant. sweet!
just fyi: i like permissive/restrictive when it comes to rulesets but i forgot where those came fromâŚsome other literature⌠anyway nice series, and thank you!
Question about Hard forks
We have learned in the previous discussion that the longest chain prevails because there is only one version of truth, now my question is why does this rule not apply in hard forks?
Does this mean that the miner that accepted the update and the miner that did not accept the update âALWAYSâ mined a block at the same time thatâs why they maintained equilibrium and the network cannot decide which is true? Thus splitting the chain for eternity
Thanks in advance.
Edit: I pondered it out and I have come into a conclusion. Please correct me If I am wrong.
Given: 90% blue ; 10% red
During the hard fork, the longer chain (BLUE) cannot cancel out the shorter chain (RED) because the size of the red miners block is within the limit of the blue ones. And the red cannot cancel out of the blue because they are short in numbers? Iâm confused.
Still, why does the rule âthe longer chain prevailsâ not applied here?
A hard fork is an intentional fork intended to permanently change the protocol and it requires the nodes to update the software. for example a change in size of block to 2MB proposed and let say 90% of the miners that have updated the software(blue),and will have longest chain but this longest chain of blocks of size 2MB is invalid for the nodes that havenât been updated the protocol So they canât choose it over their chain unless the nodes update the protocol.
2 Likes
Meaning in this argument âthe longest chain prevailâ is not true?
This works for accidentally created forks. Like if two miners create a next block at the same time.
1 Like
You loose money if your transaction happens to be in the rejected block?
No, if it is a valid transaction, it is added to the next valid block accepted on the blockchain.
Thank you for your answer. Episode âAccidental Forksâ at this minute and seconds 8:16 the instructor says âyou lost your moneyâ. Can you please check this out and help me understand what he means there?
When he said you lost your money, he meant if you sell a product and if the buyer sent money in bitcoin, you should wait for 6 confirmations at least before you send your product so you can be sure the transaction is in the accepted block. If the transaction is in a rejected block, though the transactions are sent to mempool and can be added to the next block, but the sender can use this opportunity to resend the transaction with the highest fee to himself to get mined fast in the next block and you wonât get your money if this new transaction is mined fast and add to the accepted block.
Question 1: Hey Fillip, this is my first question about Blockchain. So hard forks can potentially (maybe not always?) be entirely new versions/seperate blockchains from itâs previous version? So from what I understand, in the video about hard forks, is that BTC CASH formed from a hard fork of the original BTC? So does this mean that when ETH or BTC have a hard fork update, unless 100% of the network accepts the update, there will be two versions of that same chain, with one of them basically becoming the new a new chain entirely?
Please clarify.
-B
Question 2 Fillip. Why does a soft fork or hard fork matter? Doesnât all this happen in a relatively short time span of a few Newley mined blocks, with eventually one chain being longer, accepted as truth, and miners continuing to mine and mint new blocks amending them to the chain?
I understand the concepts, but am failing to see why they could be detrimental over a longer period of time? I thought the blockchain protocol of POW eventually solves itself due to only the longest chain giving block rewards to miners. After 6 blocks wouldnât any type of fork be resolved?
Question 3: Also, regarding forks/updates. Who proposes these updates to the protocol? How frequent are they? Accidental forks happening get resolved, true. But after a formal update, it seems there wouldnât really be an issue of any type of fork?
Question 4: Regarding block size, 1mB, 2mB, like your examples, what determines the data size of a block and can a miner see the size of the block they are attempting to mint? This process I need slight clarification on, however I understand all these concepts. Iâm not a miner so I wouldnât know exactly how this process is carried out on the micro scale, on the macro scale I do understand these concepts.
The new chain(the one with the new protocol or update) will have the same history as the old one but they are gonna have a different future. It is not going to be a new chain entirely.
Soft Forks are eventually become one chain that is the purpose of the soft fork to update without dividing or splitting the community. A hard fork requires the nodes to update the software. for example, a change in the size of a block to 2MB is proposed, and let say 90% of the miners have updated the software, and will have the longest chain but this longest chain of blocks of size 2MB is invalid for the nodes that havenât been updated the protocol So they canât choose it over their chain unless the nodes update the protocol.
Anyone can propose a change that is the beauty of decentralization.
I am not sure if I understand your question. But let me try if you want to play a game you have to follow the rule right if not you will dismiss, and the same for Miners, they should play by the protocol so if they agree to play with the protocol which accepts 2mB they should mint the block of 2MB or smaller but not larger and same for 1MB if they do against the rule the nodes will reject their block.
1 Like
What happens to the
-Block reward
-Trxn fees and
-Trxns
when a block is abandoned or becomes a stale block in accidental fork?