"There is no possibility of not ‘forking.’ In fact a chain fork (hashpower referendum) happens at every block. Merely because the referendum has voted in the incumbent ruleset a great many times in a row does not imply a referendum (chain fork) is not happening every block." ~ u/ForkiusMaximus



https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/68ju8a/utempatroy_uadam3us_unullc_ulukejr_dont_even/dgz7u1r


https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41lpir/segwit_economics/cz3cazb/

Bitcoin, as a creature of the market, should be hard forking on a regular basis, because a hard fork is the only time the market gets an opportunity to express its will in anything other than a binary YES/NO fashion. That is, without a hard fork, the market only can push the price up or down, but with a hard fork it can actually select Option A over Option B. It can even assign a relative weighting to those options, especially if coins in the two sides of the fork are allowed to be bought and sold in advance by proxy through futures trading on exchanges (e.g., Bitfinex would let you buy futures in CoreCoins and/or ClassicCoins so that the matter could be resolved before the fork even happens, with the legendary accuracy of a prediction market).

Anything controversial, on which many reasonable people are in disagreement, is the perfect time for a hard fork. The idea that controversial hard forks are to be avoided is not only exactly backwards, to even entertain the idea shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how Bitcoin works and calls into question everything else one might say on the subject.

Hard forks are the market speaking. Soft forks on any issues where there is controversy are an attempt to smother the market in its sleep. Core's approach is fundamentally anti-market and against the very open-source ethos Bitcoin was founded on.

EDIT: Looks like Ben Davenport is on the same page as far as "fork arbitrage."

~ u/ForkiusMaximus


https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/61n9y9/bruce_fenton_core_supporters_if_you_dont_like_it/dffz6g1/

People saying Bitcoin isn't antifragile is a contrarian indicator. Look at how different things are now. People are actually debating the dynamics of a hard fork, fork trading, fork futures, and Core is on the run with them being the ones having to discuss a PoW change. Besides this happening pretty slowly, what more could you ask for? Wasn't this in the cards all along?

Bitcoin will be the first cryptocurrency to dash the illusion of incorruptible leaders and blossom to a truly pluralistic development environment where no one dev or group of devs or foundation has de facto final say over changes. No major altcoin has overcome this yet, as all have their own trusty Gavin-like person or Bitcoin Wizards-like groups that is so far navigating everything well. The transition to fully realized Market Governance is a huge step, fraught with peril, but a necessary prerequisite for reaching trillion-dollar market caps.

~ u/ForkiusMaximus


https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4mbmrt/a_sanity_check_appeal_to_greg_co/d3u88jq/

In fairness, Greg and the others have raised one halfway decent point among all the weaseling around: what Classic did was probably the wrong way to get around Core.

Classic framed it as a miner vote, which Greg is calling a coup against "the users." Of course he's trying to bullshit that Core = the community, but there is still a grain of truth left after the BS is washed away. The fact is, Bitcoin doesn't work by miner vote; it works – ultimately – by market vote. The miners should serve as a proxy for that, but due to mining becoming disconnected with nodes (pooled mining) there are indeed like 10 guys who sort of have some possible control over Bitcoin (yes people can just switch pools, but is this the ideal way?).

The rightful remedy to this situation is to put competing forks up to a direct market test: commence fork futures trading on the major Bitcoin exchanges. Investors buy and sell 1MB-BTC futures and 2MB-BTC futures until a clear winner emerges. The market speaks. (And in the unlilely event that no clear winner emerges, the market has expressed its value for a persistent split.) In all cases, hodler purchasing power is unaffected.

Then neither Classic nor any other such fork can be called any kind of coup against the users, by any stretch. The 75% hashpower threshold should be removed. And I don't mean it should be increased to 95%. The blocksize cap in Classic should just be 2MB straight up as a flag day (increase to 2MB at this block…or gradual stepwise increase if prefered).

We have had endless debate because both alternatives were flawed: we should have no miner vote as proxy for a market vote; just a direct market vote. (In the event that the market chooses a persistent split, the minority chain would have to make some hashing and signing tweaks to prevent interference, of course.)

~ u/ForkiusMaximus

submitted by /u/ydtm
[comments]



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.