I just got done conversating with u/nullc, and this seems to be true as far as I can tell. I had always assumed hard forks were part of bitcoin's history!
I am not saying there is necessarily a moralistic conclusion to make from this. What was Satoshi thinking putting a limit in bitcoin that had to be hard-forked out? Was he even thinking?
A hard fork is basically changing the rules of the network and joining a new network, not socially/subjectively, but on a technical level. You could almost say, on a philosophical level, that hard forking is breaking/violating causality, that the prior state of the chain didnt lead to the latter without centralized human intervention. (Of course socially, everyone can just call the hard fork version the real version, like what happened in Ethereum with the dao hack, its definitely possible, but its almost like having a new cryptocurrency).
I now have more understanding/sympathy with the small blocker view, i can see why this is controversial, and can be seen as a slippery slope.
Not that i agree BTC has any utility resulting from this, but damn what was satoshi thinking...
Why dont i see people arguing about this in particular, that the big blocker side basically wanted to force a hard fork on bitcoin?
[link] [comments]
source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/htvx1x/wouldnt_have_raising_the_blocksize_limit_on/
No comments:
Post a Comment