4 ms·
The difference is this would require a hard fork, and the value of this fork would be determined entirely by market forces. Imagine if when the US decided to 'p
by somenameforme 3y ago
The difference is this would require a hard fork, and the value of this fork would be determined entirely by market forces. Imagine if when the US decided to 'print' a few trillion bucks, it resulted in the creation of a new USD2 currency. And you were free to keep using USD1 or swap over to USD2. More or less the exact same thing has already happened with Bitcoin multiple times, with the outcome you could expect.
It's quite interesting in an economic sense too because, unlike our USD2 analogy, in the Bitcoin world users actually keep all their money in both forks (so if you have $1000 in USD, you'd also have $1000 in USD2) yet disproportionately favor one currency to the point that e.g. Bitcoin Cash is worth $217 per coin, while BTC mainline is worth $26,000 per coin.
- tsimionescu 3y agoNot necessarily. The main BTC software has already changed a few times over the years, and nothing prevents it from changing again. If the BTC maintainers and major miners would agree, they could very well push this change. The same way they decided to stop expanding the block size, for example. The forks were the result of a split in the community. Not every change actually results in a fork.