There is great buzz about cryptocurrency. People just want to know about each and everything associated with cryptocurrency. This might be a reason why acronyms such as UASF and UAHF are high in demand. However, these were completely useless for cryptocurrency users a few months ago, but now knowing about them is essential. So, what is the basic difference between a hard fork and soft fork? If this is the also your question, you should keep reading about UASF and UAHF. Here, you will grab detailed information about UASF Vs UAHF. It will be explained here.
Both a soft fork and a hard fork are usually alterations in protocol. These can considered as an alteration to protocol or rules on which usually bitcoin functions. These two options proposed alterations in usual protocol users are dealing with today such as –
Usually a hard fork can be a radical alteration to the protocol. They make transactions that earlier were invalid. Hard fork also makes former valid transaction completely invalid. This must be a reason why for this type of fork, every user or node is needed to upgrade to most current version of the certain protocol software. In other words, a hard fork can be a permanent divergence especially from the old version of the certain bitcoin blockchain. Remember, the latest version isn’t supposed to accept nodes, functioning on the previous version of the specific bitcoin blockchain.
Usually a soft fork can be an alteration to the available software protocol especially where only old valid transactions and blocks are created invalid. Moreover, since previous nodes can recognize the latest blocks as valid, these soft forks can be backwards compatible.
It is observed that over the few past months, the global bitcoin community thoroughly debates about these two big changes to the existing bitcoin protocol. So, it is needed to know the exact fundamental differences between UAHF and UASF.
UASF can be considered as a kind of mechanism where the certain activation time of a soft fork may occur on a certain date especially enforced by nodes. Moreover, this usual concept is usually known as economic majority. Here one point should be noted that a soft fork may need big industry coordination and support. The BIP proposal usually connects SegWit activation especially with UASF.
On the other hand, UAHF is where contemporary developers usually add a necessity. Certain rules have established to alter the node software. These alterations make all invalid blocks to be valid after a certain flag day. Here, you need to remember that hard fork doesn’t need a majority of acceptance in order to be legally enforced.
The simplest answer to this most discussed and asked question is that bitcoin has always had a few flaws for a very long time. UAHF and UASF both seek to resolve these certain flaws in separate ways.
Here you should be remembered that SegWit can be a proposed solution. It seems true as major mining options such as bitcoin and bitmain don’t support this SegWit.
This is the main reason why the advent of SegWit may split the whole bitcoin world. Some miners and users may accept the new standards, but other users as well as miners might love using the previous version of bitcoin code. Obviously, it is not an ideal situation.
UAHF and UASF are both introduced as a method to avoid such type of split. By choosing either UAHF or UASF, users can easily preserve one blockchain of certain bitcoin transactions. On the other hand, if a few users choose one option while other users choose other option, there could be a problem created.
UAHF and UASF are the main two major fork variants the existing cryptocurrency world has ever witnessed. But it is a fact that they aren’t the only forks available in the cryptocurrency community.
Ethereum performed the renowned fork experiments. Ethereum began a project known as the DAO in 2016. But unfortunately after a month of launch, a hacker grabbed funds raised for this ambitious project. So, it was about $55 million loss.
It is certainly the most complicated point to explain. There could be various results. However, it is true that no one can explain what could be in store, but yes still people are playing their own game. Here, one great point is that GDAX and Coinbase has decided to go with UASF. However, despite of the fact that it could not be possible to predict anything about these options, you can still hope to witness a few outcomes with UAHF and UASF breakdown.
The first option is that the majority of existing miners and users should accept the plan. It could be a great solution as there would be no such a thing like fork. So, there could be only one branch of current bitcoin i.e. blockchain.
The second option could be that most of the users may accept the new plan, but miners may avoid going with the same. If most of the users may accept the plan, there will be only a single branch. If a minority of existing users may accept the plan, there could be two branches i.e. one for miners’ fork and second users’ fork. Moreover, if the number of existing users of a certain branch expand and attain more than 51 percent blocks especially in the miners, so the fork could be substituted with existing blocks in the current users fork. So, it means there would be no miner’s fork.
The third option could be when miners and users may not determine an agreement. In such a situation, the majority group could manipulate the smaller one. So, in this situation, any sort of transactions to smaller community could be dangerous as they could be wiped out. There could be possibilities that the smaller group or community may implement a few defensive strategies such as making new protocol and altering the algorithm.
Finally, regardless of what could happen with UASF and UAHF, it is certainly a defining moment that may decide the future of existing bitcoin world.