# Drivechain with and without BIP 300/301 **URL:** \ **Category:** Protocol Design\ **Tags:** softfork\ **Created:** [June 10, 2024, 12:15am UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/drivechain-with-and-without-bip-300-301/958 "2024-06-10T00:15:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 6
**Author:** ![moonsettler](https://delvingbitcoin.org/user_avatar/delvingbitcoin.org/moonsettler/32/38_2.png) [@moonsettler](https://delvingbitcoin.org/u/moonsettler)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2024, 8:07pm UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/drivechain-with-and-without-bip-300-301/958/6 "2024-08-20T20:07:31Z")
> [@ProofOfKeags](#): > > Programmatically rejecting blocks via `invalidateblock` _is_ a soft fork… Paul named it CUSF (which is a pretty horrible name), but basically means SF without merging to core repo. You can run a vanilla core node and still enforce a soft fork by running an out-process validator. > [@salvatoshi](#): > > It’s only a soft fork if there is economic consensus of the nodes to run it. In that case, it seems quite pointless to play the devil’s advocate: there is also the issue of people not wanting to upgrade too quickly and easily. out-process activation makes it easier to only review the new rules enforced instead of every code change. this also solves signaling for soft forks with older versions. --- _[View the full topic](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/drivechain-with-and-without-bip-300-301/958)._