Thanks for this link. From my reading though, it seems that only soft-forks that attempt to freeze funds are problematic on ethereum.
>From the article: > The soft fork creates a new and fundamentally different class of > transactions in contrast with those that currently exist within the > protocol. Currently, transactions either complete successfully and > cause a state transition, or run into an exception, in which case > state is reverted but the maximum possible gas is still charged. With > the soft fork, transactions which interact with a DAO will not fit > within these two classes: they will fail execution but no gas will be > charged. This must inevitably be the case in any soft fork that aims > to freeze the stolen funds; So in the general case ethereum can still soft-fork I think... On 09/15/2017 04:19 AM, Andrew Quentson wrote: > From my understanding, the blockchain can be designed in such a way as > to make soft-forks be impossible or at least impractical due to attack > vectors. > > http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/06/28/ethereum-soft-fork-dos-vector/ > > Ethereum, for example, can't soft-fork. They have to always hardfork. > > On 13 September 2017 at 10:50, Dan Libby via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: > > Hi, I am interested in the possibility of a cryptocurrency software > (future bitcoin or a future altcoin) that strives to have immutable > consensus rules. > > The goal of such a cryptocurrency would not be to have the latest and > greatest tech, but rather to be a long-term store of value and to offer > investors great certainty and predictability... something that markets > tend to like. And of course, zero consensus rule changes also means > less chance of new bugs and attack surface remains the same, which is > good for security. > > Of course, hard-forks are always possible. But that is a clear split > and something that people must opt into. Each party has to make a > choice, and inertia is on the side of the status quo. Whereas > soft-forks sort of drag people along with them, even those who oppose > the changes and never upgrade. In my view, that is problematic, > especially for a coin with permanent consensus rule immutability as a > goal/ethic. > > As I understand it, bitcoin soft-forks always rely on anyone-can-spend > transactions. If those were removed, would it effectively prevent > soft-forks, or are there other possible mechanisms? How important are > any-one-can spend tx for other uses? > > More generally, do you think it is possible to programmatically > avoid/ban soft-forks, and if so, how would you go about it? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev> > > -- Dan Libby Open Source Consulting S.A. Santa Ana, Costa Rica http://osc.co.cr phone: 011 506 2204 7018 Fax: 011 506 2223 7359 _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev