3 ms·
"Now, it’s worth noting that this fatal flaw of Bitcoin is not a fatal flaw for all cryptocurrencies or algorithmic currencies. One can imagine a Bitcoin-like c
by tlrobinson 14y ago
"Now, it’s worth noting that this fatal flaw of Bitcoin is not a fatal flaw for all cryptocurrencies or algorithmic currencies. One can imagine a Bitcoin-like currency with a smart algorithmic central bank (indeed, Bitcoin does have an algorithmic central bank–just an economically illiterate one)."
It's also worth noting that it's theoretically possible for Bitcoin's "monetary philosophy" to change over time.
If a majority of Bitcoin miners, and thus (in theory) the "economic majority" (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority), agree on changes to the system (for example, the rate of mining) everyone can migrate to newer versions of the software that will accept those rules, and those who don't will risk their version of the blockchain not being accepted by the majority of users.
One interesting question is what happens if there's a fairly even split between the group that accepts the old and new rules. Would the value of each blockchain be effectively halved?
- wmf 14y agoRealistically, Bitcoiners can't even agree to fix unspendable UTXOs. I can't imagine that they would ever agree to devalue their own holdings.
- bcoates 14y agoWhat is there to fix? Can't a minority client just blackball UTXOs, allowing them to exist in the blockchain but refusing to publish or accept transactions built off them? By definition, a UTXO is not in the history of good money.
- wmf 14y agoThat's a good point. Someone could troll you by spending such an output in a "valid" transaction which you would treat as invalid, but who cares.