SegWit (2017) → soft fork → no chain split Taproot (2021) → soft fork → no chain split temporary divergence leads to orphaned blocks but not a split

Dathon Ohm's soft fork will, if they are crazy enough to activate, cause a chain split The only way they can avoid a split is if they get more than 50% of hashrate But - in my opinion - they won't get 51% of hashrate and therefore we'll have a textbook example of a chain split caused by a softfork. It will be a good opportunity for you to learn how bitcoin works There is no debate on this, and therefore I will not waste time with you on this thread again. This is Nostr, not X or Telegram, and I expect higher standards You are a disgrace, lying to the plebs like this

@𝕾𝖊𝖗 𝕾𝖑𝖊𝖊𝖕𝖞, A soft fork with minority hashrate will chain split I'll be precise: Let's imagine 40% activate @Dathon Ohm's soft fork in 2026. The remaining 60% just keep doing nothing, i.e. they keep running their existing Core and Knots nodes, like Core 0.21 or Core 30 or Knots 29. Let's call the 60% the "Taproot" hashrate Also, observe that many current blocks are incompatible with the RDTS rules, for example having OP_RETURNs greater than 83 bytes The 60% running taproot will get a block roughly every 17 minutes, while the RDTS will find a block roughly every 25 minutes The first hour or so could be interesting, and maybe Taproot miners will find a couple of blocks that satisfy the RDTS rules. But that won't last long, the Taproot chain will soon include blocks that are rejected by the RDTS hashrate The chain will split, where the majority hash rate will ignore the RDTS chain because it doesn't have enough Proof of Work, and the RDTS will ignore the Taproot chain because it has RDTS-incompatible blocks So basically, @Luke Dashjr was wrong at least three times in this one paragraph X post: https://xcancel.com/LukeDashjr/status/1983145119176945910

No, you're wrong. You're acting as if miners have a choice. They don't. They must make blocks that the network accepts, or they're not miners anymore. If they make invalid blocks, *they* are splitting the chain - not the softfork. Furthermore, their invalid blocks don't constitute a real chain: every time the valid chain gets ahead, all the old nodes will drop the invalid blocks and those miners will start over, with huge losses. The only way they can avoid this, is with a counter-fork.

You're the one lying