<p dir="ltr"><br>
On Dec 18, 2015 2:13 AM, "<a href="mailto:sickpig@gmail.com">sickpig@gmail.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:sickpig@gmail.com">sickpig@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> 1.75 x 0.5 + 1 x 0.5 = 1.375<br>
><br>
> after six month. <br>
><br>
> An hard-fork on the others side would bring 1.75 since the activation, am I right?</p>
<p dir="ltr">Yes.</p>
<p dir="ltr">However, SW immediately gives a 1.75 capacity increase for anyone who adopts it, after the softfork, instantly. They don't need to wait for anyone else.</p>
<p dir="ltr">A hard fork is an orthogonal improvement, which is also needed if we don't want to be stuck with a constant maximum ultimately.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Hardforks can however only be deployed at a time when all full node software can reasonably have agreed to upgrade, while a softfork can be deployed much earlier.</p>
<p dir="ltr">They are independent improvements, and we need both. I am however of the opinion that hard forks need a much clearer consensus and much longer rollout timeframes to be safe (see my thread on the security of softforks).</p>
<p dir="ltr">-- <br>
Pieter<br>
</p>