News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:How the Bitcoin Community Turned to War by makomk on Sunday February 28, 2016 @03:13PM (#11192158)
You're conflating two fundamentally different kinds of forks. The ones activated through voting were soft forks, where old nodes still accepted all blocks mined by the new ones, and the voting was to ensure that enough miners would enforce the new rules to overtake any chains created by the old nodes and bring everyone back onto the same chain - that is, it was necessary to ensure there wasn't a permanent fork. This simply doesn't apply to hard forks because by definition, the old nodes will not accept the newer fork no matter how long it grows. Calling it "voting" is kind of a misnomer - it's a purely technical measure to make sure soft forks don't break Bitcoin when they activate.
Re:How the Bitcoin Community Turned to War by TheDong on Sunday February 28, 2016 @06:50PM (#11192962)
"voting" is a technical concept used in many distributed systems; even if it's a purely technical concept that term is correct.

Voting also applies in hard-forks. Case-in-point, XT/classic both had activation thresholds and voting.

Splitting the chain is not really useful unless you have a large majority with you for both technical and non-technical reasons, and so you vote.

Soft-forks and hard-forks aren't so different in the happy-case. They both extend the same original chain, they both have concerns about two competing chains existing and wish to avoid that, they both change the validation layer in some way (though to lesser and greater extents).