A schism is just that: miners can't ameliorate a HF transition in the way they can censor transactions without permission. This is how miners became a convenient way to activate soft-forks. <br>
<br>
So while BIP9 can indicate the later censorship (a soft fork) in a way that nodes can follow (or not) a hardfork always requires nodes to upgrade to the version increasing the degrees of freedom of the system. <br>
<br>
Signaling is less useful here: the change is not opt-in and will require coordination; and the continuation of the chain thereafter depends on people actually running the hard-fork code, not just being aware there is something happening.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 04/05/2017 12:08 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
<br>
On Tuesday, 4 April 2017 20:01:51 CEST Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: <br>
<br>
BIP 9 provides a mechanism for having miners coordinate softforks because they can make the upgrade process smoother this way. But the same is not true of hardforks: miners are essentially irrelevant to them, and cannot make the process any smoother. <br>
<br>
Can you explain how miners are irrelevant if the upgrade is not a soft fork? <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.