3 ms·

They can't implement those changes uni-laterally, it would cause a hard-fork. In addition to devs and miners, you need users, network nodes and exchanges to agr

They can't implement those changes uni-laterally, it would cause a hard-fork. In addition to devs and miners, you need users, network nodes and exchanges to agree to it as well. And even if that change were to go through, there will still be people running the old chain (Ethereum Classic is still alive). So those parameters would only change if they improve the network for most stakeholders, otherwise, most people would stay on the old chain.

tablespoon 6y ago
> They can't implement those changes uni-laterally, it would cause a hard-fork. In addition to devs and miners, you need users, network nodes and exchanges to agree to it as well. Sure, but the devs do have the "Bitcoin" name, which would leave them well-positioned to market their changes. Bitcoin Classic may stick around, but like Etherium Classic, it may not be very healthy: https://www.coindesk.com/ethereum-classic-blockchain-subject-to-yet-another-51-attack https://www.coindesk.com/ethereum-classic-blockchain-subject...
- rawtxapp 6y ago
  Nobody owns the "Bitcoin" name, people collectively decide which chaintip to call Bitcoin and that's it. The devs own "Bitcoin Core" which is just one implementation of the network.
  - tw600040 6y ago
    This is where the difference between theory and practice comes in. Who is 'people' here? Billions of people today have no idea what bitcoin is and will have no say in 'collectively' deciding which chain tip to call 'Bitcoin'. BTC is decentralized in theory, but with literally .0001% of the population owning like 99% of BTC it can't get more centralized..
    - rawtxapp 6y ago
      > Who is 'people' here? People in the Bitcoin ecosystem. For example, when the Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash split happened, you had people dumping one for the other to manipulate the price in their favor, you had miners that decided which one they wanted to mine, exchanges that decided which one they wanted to put under BTC ticker and some people that just stayed on the sidelines waiting to see which chain would prevail. For a brief moment, Bitcoin Cash was actually close (in price, adoption, etc), but then eventually people chose the original chain as Bitcoin and we know the rest.
      - 3np 6y ago
        Nitpick, Cash was the “original chain” as the split happened because what became the BCH portion of the network declined to adopt a proposed update Just goes to show it’s not necessarily clear cut what’s considered “original” at every point in time. Canonically, Bitcoin considers the longest chain in terms of accumulative difficulty (roughly translatable to hash power) the “real one
        gruez 6y ago
        >Nitpick, Cash was the “original chain” as the split happened because what became the BCH portion of the network declined to adopt a proposed update AFAIK adopting segwit is a soft-fork (existing clients will continue to work, only miners need to update), but raising the block limit is a hard-fork (all clients need to update).

tablespoon 6y ago

> They can't implement those changes uni-laterally, it would cause a hard-fork. In addition to devs and miners, you need users, network nodes and exchanges to agree to it as well. Sure, but the devs do have the "Bitcoin" name, which would leave them well-positioned to market their changes. Bitcoin Classic may stick around, but like Etherium Classic, it may not be very healthy: https://www.coindesk.com/ethereum-classic-blockchain-subject-to-yet-another-51-attack https://www.coindesk.com/ethereum-classic-blockchain-subject...

rawtxapp 6y ago
Nobody owns the "Bitcoin" name, people collectively decide which chaintip to call Bitcoin and that's it. The devs own "Bitcoin Core" which is just one implementation of the network.
- tw600040 6y ago
  This is where the difference between theory and practice comes in. Who is 'people' here? Billions of people today have no idea what bitcoin is and will have no say in 'collectively' deciding which chain tip to call 'Bitcoin'. BTC is decentralized in theory, but with literally .0001% of the population owning like 99% of BTC it can't get more centralized..
  - rawtxapp 6y ago
    > Who is 'people' here? People in the Bitcoin ecosystem. For example, when the Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash split happened, you had people dumping one for the other to manipulate the price in their favor, you had miners that decided which one they wanted to mine, exchanges that decided which one they wanted to put under BTC ticker and some people that just stayed on the sidelines waiting to see which chain would prevail. For a brief moment, Bitcoin Cash was actually close (in price, adoption, etc), but then eventually people chose the original chain as Bitcoin and we know the rest.
    - 3np 6y ago
      Nitpick, Cash was the “original chain” as the split happened because what became the BCH portion of the network declined to adopt a proposed update Just goes to show it’s not necessarily clear cut what’s considered “original” at every point in time. Canonically, Bitcoin considers the longest chain in terms of accumulative difficulty (roughly translatable to hash power) the “real one
      - gruez 6y ago
        >Nitpick, Cash was the “original chain” as the split happened because what became the BCH portion of the network declined to adopt a proposed update AFAIK adopting segwit is a soft-fork (existing clients will continue to work, only miners need to update), but raising the block limit is a hard-fork (all clients need to update).