Thats because I turned the client on last night, after the changes were pushed to the repo. Today people are updating, which means all the people who didnt update last night kept mining work blocks.
Which is why their chain is longer, but their chain doesnt calculate stake like mine does which is why mine isnt accepting their blocks and why they arnt accepting my blocks and why im at 506608 and they are at a higher block count.
We could disregard my chain and sync to the current work chain but as soon as one person stakes, the first person to stake will be a fork from the people who havnt upgraded yet. And the argument starts alllllllll over again.
"do we orphan the workers who havnt updated, or do we delete our staked chain and sync to their longer chain"
and then the loop happens again! and again and again and again until someone finally says "this is the chain we are using"
The workers are going to want to keep their easily mined work blocks, the stakers are trying to say, enough is enough lets get stake working again, and everyone else is confused. I vote we paper rock scissors the answer.
Unless you orphan those who have not upgraded or are on any other than legit longest blockchain (the most work done) than it is failed hard-fork.
The most work done on the set of rules they are working on, as soon as the rules change their longest chain doesnt matter.
Example.
Is the tekblockchain dependent on the Bitcoin blockchain? No? Why? Because they are different rule sets. Up until the hardfork blockchain A and blockchain B WERE the same rules, from that point forward they were not. People dont have to use blockchain b, but the incentive to do so is because stake (the reason people use tek) works again. Blockchain A has rules that break stake, work is fine though.
A != B
They look similar. Smell similar. Even probably taste similar but they are not the same.
