Maple AI:
Prompt: "Does the concept of economic nodes matter in a contentious, soft fork?"
Conclusion/Summary:
"While technical nodes enforce the *consensus rules* locally, and miners build the chain, **economic nodes determine which set of rules and which chain has economic relevance and value.** In a contentious soft fork, where miner signaling may be insufficient or divided, the coordinated stance of major economic players becomes the critical factor. They can force miner compliance through UASF threats or determine the surviving chain in the event of a split. Their actions ultimately reflect and shape the broader economic consensus within the Bitcoin ecosystem."
Login to reply
Replies (3)
More AI:
" **Driving User Activation (UASF):**
* A contentious soft fork can become "User-Activated" (UASF). This means **economic nodes (exchanges, wallets, payment processors) pre-commit to enforcing the new rules by a specific date, regardless of miner signaling.**
* This creates immense pressure on miners to follow, as mining blocks rejected by the dominant economic ecosystem is economically irrational. The 2017 SegWit activation (BIP 148) is a prime example where economic node commitment drove miner adoption."
A split can only persist when/if MAJOR exchanges list both *coins*
Who decides the names?
BTC_OP_R83
BTC_OP
BTC_NO_OP
True for both contentious hard forks and soft forks, correct?