Topic: [2017-08-30]Hard Forks Galore: Bitcoin Cash Debates Ambitious Tech Roadmap (Read 3062 times)

What do you mean the only software available?  You can run your own software which follows their consensus rules, or you can run any of the existing full node implementations which support those consensus rules.

There are at least four:  Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin ABC are all full node implementations which support Bitcoin Cash.
You're awfully certain about this considering that it's a multi-billion dollar network which people have not all dumped yet.  Regardless of your own opinion on it, you could try being tentative and justifying your points with evidence.

---

As it is, the majority of Bitcoin Cash users support large block sizes, so it's certainly likely that they will have hard forks in order to increase the block size when they perceive it to be necessary.  A BCH hard fork with an increased block size is quite likely to gain consensus.

It certainly makes a difference when the only software available is a practical oligopoly in their centric-scheme.

It doesn't matter much, the EDA disaster will continue to force down their price until they can't even justify supporting it on the Asian exchanges.

Its good for one thing - dumping for your own currency or changing it into BTC.

BCC will probably never catch the bitcoin. The BCC is in 3rd position which is excellent considering the time BCC created. I hope BCC will continue to appreciate.

In theory, you are right, DooMAD - but experience in the "altcoin circus" tells us that in most communities developers can dictate almost everything and hard fork at will. (Look at NXT for an extreme example, but also in ETH the tendency to follow Vitalik's decisions is clear).

The problem behind this is actually not a technical, but a social one. Because if you disagree with the "holy devs" you will be marked as a "detractor" of the currency, and you may even fear that with your (even constructive) criticism you could weaken the value of the coin. In altcoins, the price (and the Coinmarketcap position) is everything, as most users are in to get rich or at least to make some profit. So most altcoin users limit themselves to "shill" for their currency and try to benefit from that.

Bitcoin has reached already a more mature state - while criticism towards some fundamental values and concepts (Proof of work, for example) is still met with unfriendly reactions, there is, in general, a more tolerant atmosphere where you actually can push the coin into a new direction also as a regular user or as a minor developer. I highly doubt that Bitcoin Cash can reach this state, so it's possible that the hardfork agenda of the "leaders" can be rolled out without problems. But we'll see.

Except that there isn't a centralised power structure at all.  The only thing the BCH devs can do is push code.  They can't force users or miners to run it.  That would be like making the equally fallacious argument that Core are trying to create a centralised power structure just because they have some ideas they'd ideally like to push forward with.  Whichever chain you're talking about, providing it's open source, the developers can't make the decisions alone.

This shows the real sordid underbelly of BCH.

It isn't about getting consensus, its about a centralized power structure pushing changes out to the network.

We've tried that before - its called Central Banking.

Why BCH can't see that this is a path to failure just shows the flawed mental processes at work from their developers and supporters.

Hard Forks Galore: Bitcoin Cash Debates Ambitious Tech Roadmap


Bitcoin cash's developer team is shedding new light on how it might manage the world's third most valuable cryptocurrency network.

Details, not only about its development roadmap, but also the ideas of its development team, have so far been sparse since the new blockchain forked off bitcoin on August 1. Yet given the sudden, controversial manner in which it was created, it might come as no surprise that bitcoin cash's developer team isn't taking a more conservative approach.

In an email addressing other bitcoin cash developers over the weekend, Amaury Sechet, lead developer of the main bitcoin cash client, Bitcoin ABC, argued that the network should pursue an aggressive means of increasing its transaction capacity.

Sechet wrote:

"If we want to scale big, we'll have to do a [hard fork] from time to time."



This could be a questionable plan, however, since critics contend that developers shouldn't have the power to enforce hard fork changes not everyone in the ecosystem will agree with. Further, since such changes could lead to splits into competing assets, it's widely believed developers should deploy changes in a way that prioritizes keeping the network together.

Supporters, though, argue that hard forks offer a way to make more types of software upgrades, and give users more choice over technical decisions.

https://www.coindesk.com/hard-forks-galore-bitcoin-cash-debates-ambitious-tech-roadmap/