I do agree on changing the term "hard-fork." As, hard-fork has associations with Bitcoin Cash/Bitcoin, and Ethereum Classic/Ethereum, where hard-fork can be interpreted as splitting, instead of pivoting towards an improvement. The term "hard-fork" may invoke some degree of unnecessary resistance, however small that may be.

But, I'm also at the perspective of preferring the term "update" over "upgrade." "Upgrade" for every hard-fork may not be completely correct, as something like delaying the difficulty bomb may need a hard-fork, but isn't necessarily an upgrade, more-so keeping things operational as they have been. Using the term "upgrade" for a fork that doesn't really provide much upgrading may be bad for PR.

I think Microsoft and Apple use the term "update" to label changes to their operating systems, and then specify what kind of update, either a feature update (an upgrade), or a maintenance update, and then there are performance updates. Using "update" looks like a good idea.

I have come around to accepting that network upgrade is a better term than hard fork because of the connotations around hard fork described by Edson and Tim. I do want to advocate for "network upgrade" vs "network update".

An Ethereum update to me implies a client update that updates your node to perform enhancements or optimizations at the client level. Upgrade is a term with more weight that to me indicates that major changes have occurred requiring all to upgrade. Additionally, ZCash uses network upgrades and I think we shouldn't make a third term within major cryptocurrency networks. I support using "network upgrade".

Example of ZCash using network upgrade terminology: https://z.cash/upgrade/blossom/

+1 on "upgrade" vs. "update".

I see. Network upgrade is fine with me.

LGTM. We should merge now that we have decided that network upgrade is the right vernacular.

@timbeiko the last thing you need to do is add a line to the History section at the bottom of EIP-1 to indicate the change.

Does changing that single instance in EIP-1 have any measurable effect? The "hard fork metas" are still called like that.

If terminology change is wished, probably a good step would be getting an agreement from ACD for the new terminology and applying that cross the EIP repo.

@axic good point. @timbeiko what do you think?

@axic good point. Do you think the ACD gitter is the best place to bring this up? The calls seem not ideal.

Probably getting buy-in from clients would be a good way, so that their messaging also uses the new terminology.

Closed in favor of #2624