3 ms·
Semantics. Any hard fork that majority of miners do not accept and support becomes it's own branch and a separate crypto. This is why I reference the bitcoin
by three_seagrass 6y ago
Semantics. Any hard fork that majority of miners do not accept and support becomes it's own branch and a separate crypto.
This is why I reference the bitcoin block size debacle. Bitcoin Cash was created as a hard fork that miners ultimately did not accept and is now just a dwindling alt coin.
- lifty 6y agoAs far as I remember miners favored the block increase while a critical mass of validating users didn’t.
- three_seagrass 6y agoThe distribution and difference in hash power speaks otherwise.
- lifty 6y agoThat’s not how it works. Miners follow the chain with the most users and highest economic share. Check this article if you want a more accurate depiction of how it went: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-independence-day-how-this-watershed-day-defines-community-consensus https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-independence-da...
- three_seagrass 6y agoThat's over a year ago. Any remaining miners on bitcoin cash have jumped ship: https://bitcoinist.com/miners-abandon-bitcoin-cash-for-bitcoin/ https://bitcoinist.com/miners-abandon-bitcoin-cash-for-bitco...
- Taek 6y agoIt's not semantics, it's an incorrect worldview. Miners follow revenue. If miners had chosen to mine Bitcoin Cash, all that would have happened is they would have lost a ton of money competing with eachother while the miners who stayed on the original chain raked in hundreds of millions in additional profit. Segwit2x had 80% hashrate support at the time it was proposed. It also had the support of most of the exchanges and major centralized players in the space. And yet, Segwit2x did not succeed. Miners don't control Bitcoin.