Topic: Mutual Assured Forking (How the Miners can Vote to Fire the Miners) (Read 321 times)

Bitcoin Classic is planning to hard fork the block size limit to 2MB. Details are sketchy at the moment, but it seems they plan to use some activation based on a majority of the mining (e.g., 750 of the last 1000 blocks, like BIP101/XT required).

I'm more on Core's side in the debate that's raged the past year, but at some point I mainly just became sick of the fighting. The Core roadmap (Sig-Wit now; reconsider the block size in a year or so) seemed fine to me. But, it's clear a lot of Bitcoiners aren't fans of the Core developers and demand a hard fork.

So fine.

I suggest when the code for Bitcoin Classic is released, someone create a fork of it. Call it Bitcoin Forking Uninhibited (FU) or something. The reason for forking Bitcoin Classic is to have their exact mechanism for activating the hard fork. But in Bitcoin FU it would activate a different hardfork: one that would change the PoW algorithm. Luke Jr. suggested a hard fork changing the PoW from SHA2 to SHA3 (Keccak): https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/merge-6-fix-mining-centralisation

Assuming the current miners activate the 2MB hard fork on Classic, they would also activate a hard fork changing the PoW on FU. The current miners could continue to mine on the "Classic" 2MB chain. GPU miners could mine on the 1MB "FU" chain.

This insures both parts of the community get the kind of Bitcoin they want.

I know the argument that it's in everyone's economic interest to come together on one chain.

But I'm sure I'm not the only one -- on either side -- who's no longer interested in being on the same chain as people from the other side. If there's going to be a fork, let's actually fork.