Crypto 360°

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?

submitted by /u/Jstodd_
[link] [comments]

source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/htvx1x/wouldnt_have_raising_the_blocksize_limit_on/

Crypto 360°

Sunday, 19 July 2020

Pompliano Urges People To Protect Your Wealth In Bitcoin

Is it Question of past now ?

Twitter Hacker Is a BitMEX Trader, On-Chain Data Suggests

How A Message Was Sent To The Twitter Hacker via Bitcoin Addresses

A Closer Look Into "Who Funds Bitcoin Development?"

Wouldn't have raising the blocksize limit on Bitcoin been the FIRST EVER hard fork on Bitcoin?

looks like peter griffin knows what the best savings technology is!

Search This Blog