Create the page "Miner-activated softforks" on this wiki! See also the search results found.
- # '''name''' should be selected such that no two softforks, concurrent or otherwise, ever use the same name. # '''bit''' should be selected such that no two concurrent softforks use the same bit.14 KB (2,096 words) - 15:42, 15 December 2021
- | [[Consensus versions|Various hardforks and softforks]] | Softforks: Rel locktime, CSV & MTP locktime35 KB (4,843 words) - 23:38, 17 June 2022
- When a majority of miners upgrade to enforce new rules, it is called a '''miner-activated softfork''' (MASF). When full nodes coordinate to enforce new rules, withou New transaction types can often be added as softforks, requiring only that the participants (sender and receiver) and miners unde6 KB (1,054 words) - 14:29, 21 September 2018
- ...m the entire community of users - not necessarily unanimous in the case of softforks (and it is up to each entity to decide what level of support they require f9 KB (1,312 words) - 05:11, 21 June 2017
- ===Unilateral softforks=== ====Uncontroversial softforks====18 KB (2,863 words) - 07:43, 2 August 2020
- ...release of segregated witness at reference implementation version 0.13.1. Softforks based on these policies are likely to be proposed in the near future. To av ...nsensus meaning, but in the future allows new commitment values for future softforks. For example, if a new consensus-critical commitment is required in the fut25 KB (3,861 words) - 12:02, 4 August 2022
- # '''name''' should be selected such that no two softforks, concurrent or otherwise, ever use the same name. For deployments described # '''bit''' should be selected such that no two concurrent softforks use the same bit. The bit chosen should not overlap with active usage (legi17 KB (2,558 words) - 15:52, 15 December 2021