4 ms·

As long as I don't change my mind, my wallet software will not see any of those changes as legitimate, just as it didn't see Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin SV as legit

As long as I don't change my mind, my wallet software will not see any of those changes as legitimate, just as it didn't see Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin SV as legitimate.

lxgr 3y ago
If all you care about is your own view of your wallet’s value, you could get incredibly rich just by forking the chain in your favor :)
- everfree 3y ago
  I care about the chain being immutable. A chain forked in my favor is a chain I don't care about.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    The chain is very mutable! How would SegWit and other changes have been implemented otherwise? Or does the official chain stop at some point in 2011 for you, soon after the genesis block? Every fork happens in order to effect some change – and whether that change is beneficial or not is the matter of policy, not technology. Voting against a fork (with your mining power or wallet) is also a policy decision. You can't escape human nature in a system built and used by humans, not even in a very conservative/change-averse one, because conservatism is, once again, a human value, not a technological one.
    - everfree 3y ago
      > The chain is very mutable! How would SegWit and other changes have been implemented otherwise? Through backwards-compatible soft forks. Nobody removed the ability to make non-segwit transactions. SegWit did not change the existing transaction format or change the chain, it repurposed the "anyone-can-spend" transaction space. Unlike with a lot of other cryptocurrencies, the Bitcoin dev team bends over backwards to try to make sure their protocol updates extend the existing protocol rather than changing it. And most critically neither issuance nor balances have been changed, with the exception of the isolated value overflow error that was corrected during Bitcoin's infancy in 2010. > Every fork happens in order to effect some change – and whether that change is beneficial or not is the matter of policy, not technology. It's a matter of individual opinion. And with Bitcoin, every individual user can assert their own opinion by running the protocol version that aligns most with their own opinion. You can't opt out of your bank's software update. > Voting against a fork (with your mining power or wallet) is also a policy decision. You can't escape human nature in a system built and used by humans, not even in a very conservative/change-averse one, because conservatism is, once again, a human value, not a technological one. I can't argue with that. Being a bitcoin user is inherently a policy decision. Everyone makes a policy decision by clicking the "download" button. It's part of Bitcoin's strength and it's part of Bitcoin's weakness.

As long as I don't change my mind, my wallet software will not see any of those changes as legitimate, just as it didn't see Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin SV as legitimate.

lxgr 3y ago

If all you care about is your own view of your wallet’s value, you could get incredibly rich just by forking the chain in your favor :)

everfree 3y ago
I care about the chain being immutable. A chain forked in my favor is a chain I don't care about.
- lxgr 3y ago
  The chain is very mutable! How would SegWit and other changes have been implemented otherwise? Or does the official chain stop at some point in 2011 for you, soon after the genesis block? Every fork happens in order to effect some change – and whether that change is beneficial or not is the matter of policy, not technology. Voting against a fork (with your mining power or wallet) is also a policy decision. You can't escape human nature in a system built and used by humans, not even in a very conservative/change-averse one, because conservatism is, once again, a human value, not a technological one.
  - everfree 3y ago
    > The chain is very mutable! How would SegWit and other changes have been implemented otherwise? Through backwards-compatible soft forks. Nobody removed the ability to make non-segwit transactions. SegWit did not change the existing transaction format or change the chain, it repurposed the "anyone-can-spend" transaction space. Unlike with a lot of other cryptocurrencies, the Bitcoin dev team bends over backwards to try to make sure their protocol updates extend the existing protocol rather than changing it. And most critically neither issuance nor balances have been changed, with the exception of the isolated value overflow error that was corrected during Bitcoin's infancy in 2010. > Every fork happens in order to effect some change – and whether that change is beneficial or not is the matter of policy, not technology. It's a matter of individual opinion. And with Bitcoin, every individual user can assert their own opinion by running the protocol version that aligns most with their own opinion. You can't opt out of your bank's software update. > Voting against a fork (with your mining power or wallet) is also a policy decision. You can't escape human nature in a system built and used by humans, not even in a very conservative/change-averse one, because conservatism is, once again, a human value, not a technological one. I can't argue with that. Being a bitcoin user is inherently a policy decision. Everyone makes a policy decision by clicking the "download" button. It's part of Bitcoin's strength and it's part of Bitcoin's weakness.