Hacker News Reader

Very much agree. Hard fork has the implication of people disagreeing to the point where two things go in the opposite direction. Whereas this is just improvement for the future. Using the term hard fork is fine, but throw "update" in the phrase to make it sound positive.

View on HN

I mean, you argument is that we should all lie about what the "upgrade/hardfork" is, because the truth could cause controversy.

This change is not backward compatible. Therefore it is a hardfork. Full stop.

To many familiar with open source, "fork" implies some sort of intractable difference: personality, legal, technical decision, etc. "Incompatible change" seems more accurate, at least based on terms I'm used to hearing.

I think it's not about lying, but very often software upgrades are not backward compatible, in that case, everybody should upgrade, that's all. It is probably more intuitive concept for the mainstream market than saying "a hard fork is coming soon".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com