4 ms·

> the block size could never be touched without ruining the vaguely-defined “decentralization” Fun fact: All forks of Bitcoin which attempted to remove it act

> the block size could never be touched without ruining the vaguely-defined “decentralization” Fun fact: All forks of Bitcoin which attempted to remove it actually ruined their decentralization in the process and are now either dead or valued <1/100 of Bitcoin. Seems like the market values a stable and secure Layer 1 over altcoins promising free lunches.

__blockcipher__ 6y ago
The market capitalization of a cryptocurrency has no relation to its utility as a currency, except insofar as a volatile currency - particularly in the downward direction - hampers its usage as a currency without converting from USD at the time of tx
Dylan16807 6y ago
"Popularity contests don't think much of forks" seems like a much stronger thesis to me.
- frankenst1 6y ago
  The second most popular (i.e. valuable) cryptocurrency (ETH) is a fork of Ethereum, while the original (now called ETC) is practically dead.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    I would disagree with calling "ethereum" the fork. But even accepting that premise, it's still an example where exactly one version gets to live, and the one made by a group of average people is the one that died. There is effectively no forking allowed, and implementing a fork of bitcoin is just a slipshod alternative to BIPs.
    - frankenst1 6y ago
      If you redefine 'forks' to refer to the minority chains you are of course correct that "popularity contests don't think much of forks", but this would be a) tautological and b) not the correct use of a well-defined technical term. ETC is not a fork and it wasn't 'made' by anyone. It is just the original, unaltered transaction history of Ethereum. ETH was 'made' by introducing a hard-fork and altering parts of Ethereum's transaction history, diverging from prior consensus rules.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        > tautological It's not tautological to say that you get 100% or 0%. You can't effectively split the population. It almost happened with ethereum, and has never really come close with bitcoin. It's also not tautological to say "The thing called 'bitcoin' at the time has always been the winner. The thing called 'ethereum' at the time has always been the winner." > not the correct use of a well-defined technical term If you want to be really technical, every single update is a fork, and every single time two blocks are mined at the same time it's a fork. I would rather go with what people were actually calling 'bitcoin' or 'ethereum' the day after any forking of the chain. I don't think it's reasonable to say that we're on a fork of a fork of a fork of a fork of a fork of a fork of bitcoin or ethereum. > ETC is not a fork and it wasn't 'made' by anyone. It is just the original, unaltered transaction history of Ethereum. ETH was 'made' by introducing a hard-fork and altering parts of Ethereum's transaction history, diverging from prior consensus rules. All the blocks after the divergence point were made by someone. The original transaction history is part of both. And I would say that using consensus to change the consensus rules is part of the consensus rules.
        frankenst1 6y ago
        > It's not tautological to say that you get 100% or 0%. I was referring to your argument that "popularity contests don't think much of unpopular (i.e. minority) forks". > The thing called 'ethereum' at the time has always been the winner. The thing called 'Ethereum' at the time is now called ETC, and it lost. > every single update is a fork, and every single time two blocks are mined at the same time it's a fork. Only updates which change consensus are considered forks. Two blocks mined at the same time is not a fork (because consensus rules have not been changed), but a temporary chain split. Forks can sometimes cause permanent splits though (ETH, Bitcoin alts) when both sides retain hashrate to mine/support it.

__blockcipher__ 6y ago

The market capitalization of a cryptocurrency has no relation to its utility as a currency, except insofar as a volatile currency - particularly in the downward direction - hampers its usage as a currency without converting from USD at the time of tx

Dylan16807 6y ago

"Popularity contests don't think much of forks" seems like a much stronger thesis to me.

frankenst1 6y ago
The second most popular (i.e. valuable) cryptocurrency (ETH) is a fork of Ethereum, while the original (now called ETC) is practically dead.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  I would disagree with calling "ethereum" the fork. But even accepting that premise, it's still an example where exactly one version gets to live, and the one made by a group of average people is the one that died. There is effectively no forking allowed, and implementing a fork of bitcoin is just a slipshod alternative to BIPs.
  - frankenst1 6y ago
    If you redefine 'forks' to refer to the minority chains you are of course correct that "popularity contests don't think much of forks", but this would be a) tautological and b) not the correct use of a well-defined technical term. ETC is not a fork and it wasn't 'made' by anyone. It is just the original, unaltered transaction history of Ethereum. ETH was 'made' by introducing a hard-fork and altering parts of Ethereum's transaction history, diverging from prior consensus rules.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      > tautological It's not tautological to say that you get 100% or 0%. You can't effectively split the population. It almost happened with ethereum, and has never really come close with bitcoin. It's also not tautological to say "The thing called 'bitcoin' at the time has always been the winner. The thing called 'ethereum' at the time has always been the winner." > not the correct use of a well-defined technical term If you want to be really technical, every single update is a fork, and every single time two blocks are mined at the same time it's a fork. I would rather go with what people were actually calling 'bitcoin' or 'ethereum' the day after any forking of the chain. I don't think it's reasonable to say that we're on a fork of a fork of a fork of a fork of a fork of a fork of bitcoin or ethereum. > ETC is not a fork and it wasn't 'made' by anyone. It is just the original, unaltered transaction history of Ethereum. ETH was 'made' by introducing a hard-fork and altering parts of Ethereum's transaction history, diverging from prior consensus rules. All the blocks after the divergence point were made by someone. The original transaction history is part of both. And I would say that using consensus to change the consensus rules is part of the consensus rules.
      - frankenst1 6y ago
        > It's not tautological to say that you get 100% or 0%. I was referring to your argument that "popularity contests don't think much of unpopular (i.e. minority) forks". > The thing called 'ethereum' at the time has always been the winner. The thing called 'Ethereum' at the time is now called ETC, and it lost. > every single update is a fork, and every single time two blocks are mined at the same time it's a fork. Only updates which change consensus are considered forks. Two blocks mined at the same time is not a fork (because consensus rules have not been changed), but a temporary chain split. Forks can sometimes cause permanent splits though (ETH, Bitcoin alts) when both sides retain hashrate to mine/support it.