Nevertheless, there are several solutions proposed to this problem. One is simply to increase the block size again. BU. However, in order to do so, one needs a HARD FORK. New blocks (bigger than 1 MB) will not be accepted by old protocol. As such, chances are that two different coins emerge: a "big block BU bitcoin", and a standard bitcoin. Like ethereum split in ETC and ETH.
no
ethereum intentionally split by banning opposing nodes (google it: --oppose-dao-fork)
hence why you can spend coins on eth but keep coins on etc because they do not inter-communicate to add the coin to the mempools of both sides
this is different than a consensus where only one chain survives and the opposition simply cannot sync because it has different rules and simply ends up orphaning everything it see's
to avoid being left unsynced, it needs to ban the opposition so that it doesnt see the oppositions higher blockheight and also doesnt see thier own attempts getting orphaned and doesnt end up trying to grab the highest height just to orphan and remain unsynced.
when it comes to which to choose and what happens next is dependant on what the oppositions do.
for instance without there being a banning event.
its either consensus (high acceptability rate by the network) where by the high acceptability will see low orphan rate because they win the height more often and where the minority orphan out ALOT but ultimately one chain. and the minority just dead and unsynced because although they see the highest blockheight they will orphan it because the data wont meet their rules.
or controversial(above medium acceptability rate) where by the above medium acceptability will see more orphans rate because they win the height but have orphans happening often as there is a bit more of a fight for height.. but ultimately one chain. and the minority just dead and unsynced
whether its soft (change occurs only by pools trigger) or hard (change occurs by NODES and pools trigger)
consensus, controversial .. or worse intentional split(banning AKA bilateral split) can happen.
yes even going soft, core(managed by blockstream) can (and admittedly will) split the network
BIP9 changed to a new quorum sensing approach that is MUCH less vulnerable to false triggering, so 95% under it is more like 99.9% (C) under the old approach. basically when it activates, the 95% will have to be willing to potentially orphan the blocks of the 5% that remain(B)
If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90% ... then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.(A)
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/once segwit activates, it will be possible for other miners to produce blocks that you consider to be valid but which every segwit-enforcing node rejects; if you build any of your blocks upon those invalid blocks, your blocks will be considered invalid too.
...
anyone who wants to use the features enabled by the segwit soft fork will want to know that a sufficient number of full node users have upgraded their nodes to refuse blocks and transactions that violate the segwit rules,
the minority "could" then ban the opposition and only communicate with pools the nodes can accept and this is then allowing the minority to build their own chain
BU, classic, xt and about a dozen independent implementations do not want to ban nodes and create an altcoin.
they want to stick with one network that grows using consensus
only core(managed by blockstream) want to split... but blockstream are trying to push fake doomsdays that their opposition will create an altcoin, but secretly(well now public) it will be blockstream that will cause the altcoin but they want to play the 'victim card' pretending its their oppositions fault
What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.
I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.
The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--