Just to put this into perspective, when roger was asked about the eth fork he literally said "yay free money" . If hes an economist im santa clause.
when gmaxwell asked non core dev's to bilateral split.. they said no..
What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.
I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.
The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--
I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.
The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--
over the last 2 years all these teams that core are saying are attacking bitcoin, and core are saying non-core implementations want control, they want to split they want x,y,z
but the 2 years have shown one things.. it has shown that gmaxwell is wrong.
thes non-core teams have no set deadlines not threatened with PoW changes or mandatory activations with other bloackmails.
infact the only group that have gave only pools the vote. has been core.
yep no dynamics + china..
but instead
segwit+btcc was where it began in november
as for core economics. they removed many CODE methods to keep fee's down and just went with the auction house economics of 'just pay more while we limit space available to be auctioned.'
i do laugh when people cant even see which shoe is on which foot and end up shooting themselves in the foot when they start attacking using arguments caused by their own fan favourite.
