The real satoshi told you what happens to minority forks ...
A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
...
The real satoshi is talking about the possibility of future chain forks here (i.e. BCH and BSV etc.,)
No, the real satoshi is clearly NOT talking about the possibility of future chain forks in your quoted passage. The real satoshi is manifestly speaking to the topic of alternate client software implementations working on the same blockchain.
What was it he said in the same discussion immediately preceding? Oh yes:
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
[emphasis added]
you still need to address his points, specifically:
Any such requirement is in your mind only.
Quote
Do you believe that some court in some jurisdiction should be able to force changes to the blockchain?
'Should be able to'? As in, from a philosophical viewpoint? No, I don't. Then again, I am of the opinion that taxation is theft, but I pay what the people with guns insist I must anyhow.
Or maybe you meant as a practical matter? Is an 'are jurisdictions _able_ to force changes to the blockchain'?. I don't think so, but I am not 100% positive.
Bitcoin has so far exhibited a fair amount of resiliency. However, governments have created coordinated responses to other limits to their power. And all that hashrate comes with a physical manifestation with defined geographic locations. Which are therefore subject to the dictates of Men With Guns. If such Men With Guns mount a coordinated campaign against >50% of the network -- however improbable such coordination seem -- then yes. I can certainly envision the possibility that governments can force changes made to the blockchain. Any blockchain.
But this state is completely independent of any mutterings Craig may make. And are true for any and all PoW blockchains. BTC included.
So while you seek to vilify BSV for one person's mutterings on the topic, the utterances are completely unaffected by -- and completely without effect to -- any reality regarding the topic.
