Heads up BCT holders ...
http://blog.rongarret.info/2017/09/the-bitcoin-apocalypse-is-coming.htmlCoupla standouts, Ron is one of the few technically well-informed people who actually understands the role of the embracing social contract:
The problem is that making any changes to Bitcoin is really, really hard, and this too is by design. At root, Bitcoin is a process for achieving distributed consensus, in particular, a consensus about who owns what. But before you can use this process you have to achieve consensus about the process itself. And you can't use the blockchain to achieve that consensus. The whole thing can only be bootstrapped by the messy process of politics and human interaction. That is one of the reasons that it is remarkable that Bitcoin has gotten as far as it has.
If he was aware of the fact that user groups of cryptocurrencies based on the Bitcoin protocol are inherently Teal orgs, he might not have seen Bitcoin's continued survival as quite as remarkable.This is why I find questions about a roadmap impossible to answer - it doesn't matter how much effort is put in to improving the codebase or promoting the coin, the silent majority silently makes its silent judgement as to whether it can be collectively arsed to bother.
But it is admittedly true that ...
The elephant in the room is what many see as Bitcoin's core value proposition, the supply limit of 21 million coins. This limit is often advertised as being inviolable because it is mathematically enforced, but that is only true as long as everyone is running the code that enforces that limit. The 21-million coin limit is enforced by exactly the same mechanism that currently enforces the block size limit. If the one can change, so can the other.
What Ron doesn't address is the question
what economic parameters are collectively perceived as definitional? Would it still be Bitcoin if the limit were 21,000,001 coins? What about 21,000,002? 22,000,000? If the algo was changed to Blake2 for extra speed? If the algo changed to Blake2 because SHA-2 was compromised? Anyone care to challenge me if I asserted this is a matter of group psychology rather than economics?
Where next for Slimcoin? I can discern a broad trajectory - the next phase will be a period of consolidation during which the added functionality is polished into something accessible and immediately
usable. This involves creating more accessible descriptions of Slimcoin, descriptions which barely mention cryptocurrency at all.
... unless it is the case that collectively the group feels that Slimcoin should remain purely a “store of value” cryptocurrency - and we won't find out until the silent majority has not spoken (if you get my drift).
Cheers
Graham