I agree. I've been thinking about this, here's what I'm at right now,
As long as the block chain *does* fork, everyone's coin also forks with it, right ? so people can just sell their coin on one chain to buy more on the other if they want to. Everyone is satisfied.
Two problems I can think of though,
1- what if the fork doesn't happen for some reason ? I don't know what would prevent it from happening but people on other threads are saying it needs "miner consensus". I would appreciate it if someone can explain this to me.
2- This could be a silly question, but is there something to prevent someone from taking transactions from one chain and rebroadcasting them on the other ?
Topic: Hards forks are the real issue, not blockchain size - page 2. (Read 1821 times)
I actually don't disagree with the OP. Except that all this drama around the block size limit is nothing but a market regulated strictly by consumption (i.e. a free market) actually regulating itself. All these threads, all the whining and squealing and protesting and lobbying, ect., all this is part of the process of how this market will through levels of consumption figure out which fork of Bitcoin best serves it - hint: it will most likely be the one that will be the most consumed. And hey, there's nothing that says that two forks can't coexist.. Yes, maybe it would damage Bitcoin a bit but perhaps BitcoinA and BitcoinB can both recover and be their own seperate thing and find equal demand in consumption.
I kind of already have a wish list for my ideal cryptocurrency that I will put into words and post in the alternative cryptocurrencies section in order to invite devs to take the Bitcoin source code and actually try and innovate and find some improvements which might yield a successful Bitcoin 2.0. So far I'm not impressed with any of the alternatives because none of them solve anything groundbreaking.
I kind of already have a wish list for my ideal cryptocurrency that I will put into words and post in the alternative cryptocurrencies section in order to invite devs to take the Bitcoin source code and actually try and innovate and find some improvements which might yield a successful Bitcoin 2.0. So far I'm not impressed with any of the alternatives because none of them solve anything groundbreaking.
There. Is. Another. Way.
Blockchain size is a real and current concern of course, and in the future there will be many more hard-coded issues that will arise. Hard forks happen and will continue to happen, as we see in Solidcoin and all the rest. The developers should no be in any position to bring down bitcoin, because if they are, bitcoin will eventually fail. Bitcoin is about faith in the market system. The system must be resistant to bad ideas. Is it?
Someone code up a hard-fork and see if it takes hold. That is the bitcoin way and it is not too be feared.
Jump to: