5 ms·

That would result in a fork, split adoption, and is not nearly as easy as you imply.

by GenerocUsername 7y ago

empath75 7y ago
There have been multiple forks.
- bduerst 7y ago
  Many of which are considered failures, which is the point.
- russdpale 7y ago
  Yeh and they all fuckin suck. I wonder why? Its because they compromise on the quixotic properties that make bitcoin valuable.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    What is the substantive meaning behind "fuckn suck"? As an example, most exchanges and processors have both BTC and BCH so if you're not a speculator there isn't much functional difference. (I know there are technical differences, but those differences don't change the fact that they are fungible blockchain tokens)
    - polyomino 7y ago
      the functional difference is that BCH doesn't have a meaningful portion of the SHA256 hashrate, so it's vulnerable to 51% attack all the time. But, it's basically worthless so nobody cares.
      - root_axis 7y ago
        That's not a functional difference since it doesn't affect how the coin functions for users. BCH is certainly more at risk for a 51% attack but the risk is an abstract threat, not something that changes the fundamental nature of BCH. Your own logic actually demonstrates this because if some future event caused BCH to have a higher share of the hashrate then your own reasoning would demand that BTC be considered illegitimate without any technical qualities of BTC having to change.
    - BinaryResult 7y ago
      BCH usage is laughable. See for yourself. https://txhighway.com/ https://txhighway.com/
      - root_axis 7y ago
        I don't disagree that the usage is laughable, but that doesn't really matter if you're trying to use BCH as a currency instead of a speculation vehicle. BCH converts to cash just as easily as BTC does once its in an exchange.
    - russdpale 7y ago
      There isn't that much difference from a functional perspective. However, they will never achieve the value of bitcoin because many of them have forsaken the properties that give bitcoin its value. There is too much argument over which chain will win, imo, its like asking which nation will win- it doesn't have an answer. We are humans, we excel at patchworked cooperation, which is why we have so many nation states and governing systems. There will be more than enough room for users to have many choices when it comes to blockchains for the foreseeable future.
      - root_axis 7y ago
        > However, they will never achieve the value of bitcoin because many of them have forsaken the properties that give bitcoin its value. A subjective opinion that is also irrelevant to the point. It doesn't matter how likely you think a fork is to succeed, the argument that computer software is impossible to change because "nobody would ever agree to those changes" is incorrect.
root_axis 7y ago
It is as easy as I imply since I specifically said if the leadership/community desire such a change. Saying "you can't print more" is 100% wrong.

That would result in a fork, split adoption, and is not nearly as easy as you imply.

empath75 7y ago

There have been multiple forks.

bduerst 7y ago
Many of which are considered failures, which is the point.
russdpale 7y ago
Yeh and they all fuckin suck. I wonder why? Its because they compromise on the quixotic properties that make bitcoin valuable.
- root_axis 7y ago
  What is the substantive meaning behind "fuckn suck"? As an example, most exchanges and processors have both BTC and BCH so if you're not a speculator there isn't much functional difference. (I know there are technical differences, but those differences don't change the fact that they are fungible blockchain tokens)
  - polyomino 7y ago
    the functional difference is that BCH doesn't have a meaningful portion of the SHA256 hashrate, so it's vulnerable to 51% attack all the time. But, it's basically worthless so nobody cares.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      That's not a functional difference since it doesn't affect how the coin functions for users. BCH is certainly more at risk for a 51% attack but the risk is an abstract threat, not something that changes the fundamental nature of BCH. Your own logic actually demonstrates this because if some future event caused BCH to have a higher share of the hashrate then your own reasoning would demand that BTC be considered illegitimate without any technical qualities of BTC having to change.
  - BinaryResult 7y ago
    BCH usage is laughable. See for yourself. https://txhighway.com/ https://txhighway.com/
    - root_axis 7y ago
      I don't disagree that the usage is laughable, but that doesn't really matter if you're trying to use BCH as a currency instead of a speculation vehicle. BCH converts to cash just as easily as BTC does once its in an exchange.
  - russdpale 7y ago
    There isn't that much difference from a functional perspective. However, they will never achieve the value of bitcoin because many of them have forsaken the properties that give bitcoin its value. There is too much argument over which chain will win, imo, its like asking which nation will win- it doesn't have an answer. We are humans, we excel at patchworked cooperation, which is why we have so many nation states and governing systems. There will be more than enough room for users to have many choices when it comes to blockchains for the foreseeable future.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      > However, they will never achieve the value of bitcoin because many of them have forsaken the properties that give bitcoin its value. A subjective opinion that is also irrelevant to the point. It doesn't matter how likely you think a fork is to succeed, the argument that computer software is impossible to change because "nobody would ever agree to those changes" is incorrect.

root_axis 7y ago

It is as easy as I imply since I specifically said if the leadership/community desire such a change. Saying "you can't print more" is 100% wrong.