Set the threshold. Compare nodes, miners, and economic actors. See which signal makes the soft-fork case weakest.
A soft fork stays compatible with older nodes, but that technical envelope does not settle legitimacy. Adoption can look broad in one constituency and thin in another. This workbench makes that disagreement visible.
These are your assumptions, not live network measurements. The tool calculates them transparently and keeps the weakest signal in view.
Every signal clears a simple majority, but at least one remains below your 80% bar. This is a scenario classification, not a claim about Bitcoin consensus.
Older nodes must continue accepting blocks under the historical rules they understand. That constraint is part of the source argument, but this lab does not judge whether a particular proposal is technically a soft fork.
Reachable node counts, miner signaling, and economic adoption are not interchangeable votes. The lowest percentage is highlighted to prevent one strong signal from hiding another weak one.
The workbench lets you choose the bar because the supplied post says adoption must be convincing without defining a percentage. No default here is protocol law, a live estimate, or a prediction.
See the exact share upgraded and the additional count needed to reach your chosen threshold.
Compare miner signaling without treating hash power as the only constituency that matters.
Model economic adoption separately, keeping the input explicitly hypothetical.