pull down to refresh
I think OP is talking about miners running the old version mining blocks that are too big for the new nodes and thus causing a similar chain split. Instead of old nodes rejecting new blocks, new nodes would reject "old" blocks (new blocks that are mined with old consensus rules).
So I think this is the essential question:
Do such soft-forks always require miner cooperation first?
Yes, according to my knowledge, that is the case.
See the Segregated Witness Upgrade Guide:
Initial segwit adoption requires the participation of two groups:
- Miners representing 95% or more of the total Bitcoin network hash rate must signal support for segwit in order to lock-in segwit’s activation.
- Full nodes run by a reasonable number of users and business to validate the payments they receive need to be upgraded to Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 or above, or another segwit-compatible implementation in order to incentivize miners to follow segwit’s rules after segwit activates. (This is Bitcoin’s normal incentivization mechanism where miners only receive income for generating a block if they follow all of the consensus rules, which will include the new segwit consensus rules once segwit activates.)
reply
deleted by author
Making something smaller would lead to wasted or unused space, but isn’t necessarily incompatible. That’s why I think decreasing block size would be a soft fork instead of hard. This differs from increasing in that you can’t fit something larger in something smaller, hence hard fork