3 ms·

It may well fork under those circumstances but we've seen, multiple times, that a fork isn't terminal. You just usually end up with a dominant fork and the othe

It may well fork under those circumstances but we've seen, multiple times, that a fork isn't terminal. You just usually end up with a dominant fork and the others tend to wither. So the real question is, would the dominant fork be the one that ends mining or the one that continues it? And that would likely be answered by which the the power brokers in Bitcoin-land will support ie the mining pools. So, for your contention to be correct, we would have to believe that the mining pools would willingly give up their source of power because of Satoshi's vision. It's not impossible for that to happen, of course. But the whole history of just about everything suggest that it's not the most likely outcome.

cesarb 4y ago
> So the real question is, would the dominant fork be the one that ends mining or the one that continues it? And that would likely be answered by which the the power brokers in Bitcoin-land will support ie the mining pools. That's a common misconception, but the ones who matter to decide which will be the dominant fork are the so-called "economic nodes", not miners. Nowadays, the most important "economic nodes" seem to be the exchanges (after all, Bitcoin is useless unless you can convert it to something else, be it goods, services, or fiat money, and the later seems to be its most important use nowadays).