4 ms·
A lot of these arguments against the future of Bitcoin rest on the ill-founded assumption that the Bitcoin protocol is static and unchanging. This isn't necess
by Xcelerate 13y ago
A lot of these arguments against the future of Bitcoin rest on the ill-founded assumption that the Bitcoin protocol is static and unchanging. This isn't necessarily true; there's already reactionary plans should SHA-2 or secp256k1 become comprised.
It seems fair to reason that a community consensus would alter the protocol should deflation ever really become a problem.
- wyager 13y agoReplacing the underlying crypto is 1000x simpler than replacing the coin production mechanism, for both political and practical reasons.
- tlrobinson 13y agoI think miners who have invested in farms of (very application specific) ASICs would disagree. Then again, in theory it's the "economic majority", not that miners, that matter: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority
- wyager 13y agoYou can replace RIPE or ECDSA or even SHA (in the address-generation mechanism) without impacting the miners at all.
- jellicle 13y agoSince the entire premise of Bitcoin is a fanatical devotion to the idea that no evil government will ever be able to produce more of the currency, it seems highly, highly unlikely that the deflationary "bug" in the Bitcoin protocol is one that will ever be changed by Bitcoin participants. Any other bug might be fixed. But not that one.