From what I've read, the November fork discussion sounds like 2 dev groups choosing to make incompatible changes to BCH mostly out of egoism and spite.
Is there any reason why anyone would some this childish approach to developing what should be a universal currency? Am I misunderstanding the motivations of the dev groups?
From what I've seen, SV is the Craig implementation that wants to remove blocksize limits ASAP and screw over any (most) nodes that get left behind.
ABC is Amaury's implementation that wants to add incompatible changes to transaction ordering. I'm not up on technicals, but motivation for CTOR sounds eerily like SegWit to me. To add to that concern, Amaury also says odd, Blockstream-minded things, like how too many small, fee-paying transactions is a DDOS of the network.
It seems like the more I hear about BU, they seem more pragmatic, less pigheaded, and also more interested in the success of BCH. Why would anyone support the other two?
[link] [comments]
source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9tixf5/is_there_a_reason_not_to_run_bitcoin_unlimited/
No comments:
Post a Comment