After the video was made, Matt reviewed it and gave these valuable insights

[Oct 19, 2022 at 8:38:19 PM]:
heh looks like its the middle of the night and you’re chillin in your pajamas

so, forks mean changing the prrtocol rules.
A HARD fork means the new rules are invalid on the current software. We call this "not backwards compatible" and it means that everyone who wants the fork MUST upgrade their software. If some miners continue to run OLD software, you get a chain split. Quintessential example of this is Bitcoin Cash. New software was released that changed some rules in such a HARD way that existing bitcoin software just ignored it. Meanwhile that new software went on to mine blocks and create a second chain. projects like Monero, Etehreum, ZCash and others do hard forks intentionally and even regularly -- every time they do this they need to be really sure that ALL the miners will run the new software and there is no "old" chain.
A SOFT fork is equivelent to a 51% attack by miners. The miners effectively censor transactions and blocks that don't satisfy the new rules. Older software may be confused but still accept all the new blocks by these upgraded miners, because the new rules DO NOT BREAK the old rules. An example of this is Segregated Witness. New software was installed by miners and they started enforcing EXTRA rules on certain types of transactions. Software that did not upgrade accepted these blocks without even knowing that extra new rules were being applied

so, HNS:

extending the reserved name claim period is a HARD FORK: Either everyone agrees and upgrades their software, or we risk having "Handshake Classic"

reducing the number of renewals allowed in a block is a SOFT FORK: at the very least, a majority of mining power hashrate needs to upgrade their software

We would probably use a BIP (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0009.mediawiki) system to determine miner status and to trigger the new rules

BIP9 can actually be set to activate on any percentage of hashrate but I think its usually 90% or more

so

> we need 80 percent approval to pass? tbh I hope it doesn't pass but I like the idea of burning the Alexa coins eventually but keeping the domains reserved indefinitely, increases interoperability. Although the fact that someone can squat on a domain on namebase with no effort might be kinda bad. in other words people could accidentally be squatting.

not sure what this means really, unless he explciitly refers to 80% of hashrate (basically just F2pool and DXpool need to agree)

the "approval" in this context would actually happen using BIP9 which is miners signalling ON THE CHAIN itself

of course, before even releasing software like that we would need to figure out some way of determining community consensus, and there is simply NO way to really do that well.