It's simple: Users decide ultimately, because users give value to the currency buying it and trusting it. Hashrate doesn't matter if people aren't using nodes to validate all the miner's work and aren't buying the coin which means it has no price support and no software support.
If 95% of miners agree to raise the 21 million limit (this is what supporting BU and all other EC implementation means since in 2140 it would need to be 21million+inflation for EC to work) and and 95% of users reject to raise 21 million limit, then the miners will be wasting their time. PoW change and the adventure continues. This is what is happening now, BU has no support, only by some big miners, that's all.
Topic: Where do each stand from A to Z? (Read 319 times)
Only one reply. Does that mean the "silent majority" agrees with me?
I'd rather just having bigger blocks than starting some bullshit about increasing the quantity cap for Bitcoin. When the hell did that become a topic of discussion?
There should be no increase for the amount of Bitcoin, and I doubt you'd be able to get a larger than 33% total support for it across the entire community. There are some that would benefit but most likely wouldn't want to change it.
Also which option is reject/reject? You only have options where the one majority in the community supports it.
I get that this isn't really a serious post like this should happen, but for the sake of it I'll give my PoV as if it was.
There should be no increase for the amount of Bitcoin, and I doubt you'd be able to get a larger than 33% total support for it across the entire community. There are some that would benefit but most likely wouldn't want to change it.
Also which option is reject/reject? You only have options where the one majority in the community supports it.
I get that this isn't really a serious post like this should happen, but for the sake of it I'll give my PoV as if it was.
No option as it is obvious it will never be implemented. A bit like the current Core v BU.
I'd rather just having bigger blocks than starting some bullshit about increasing the quantity cap for Bitcoin. When the hell did that become a topic of discussion?
There should be no increase for the amount of Bitcoin, and I doubt you'd be able to get a larger than 33% total support for it across the entire community. There are some that would benefit but most likely wouldn't want to change it.
Also which option is reject/reject? You only have options where the one majority in the community supports it.
I get that this isn't really a serious post like this should happen, but for the sake of it I'll give my PoV as if it was.
There should be no increase for the amount of Bitcoin, and I doubt you'd be able to get a larger than 33% total support for it across the entire community. There are some that would benefit but most likely wouldn't want to change it.
Also which option is reject/reject? You only have options where the one majority in the community supports it.
I get that this isn't really a serious post like this should happen, but for the sake of it I'll give my PoV as if it was.
Had this buried in another thread but i thought we can be debate it properly on here.
I suspect many will have many likes and dislikes, so where do you stand from A to Z?
The scenarios can be played out like this. Example.
A - 95% of the miners support increasing 21m coins to 30m coins. 95% of the users reject it. Users keep their money in BTC and very little goes into AltBTC. Users fire up their mining equipment and the miners mine a worthless low value coin that very few will buy. Miners will realise the errors of their ways and stop mining AltBTC and support BTC.
B - 95% of the miners support increasing 21m coins to 30m coins. 95% of the users support it. BTC will now mine 30m coins. Crazy it may be but what can the 5% do? Dump their coins?
C - 95% of the miners reject 21m coins to 30m coins. 95% of the users support it. Users keep their money in BTC and very little goes into AltBTC. Users fire up their mining equipment and the miners mine a worthless low value coin that very little will buy. Miners will realise the errors of their ways and stop mining AltBTC and support BTC. One then realise the users do have power over their money and that what create value.
The idea that 95% of the users want to increase the coins from 21m to 30m won't happen because it will devalue their BTC, and users are not that stupid, so don't worry.
Now there is division over BU and Core. Both have made grievous errors. Both are proposing so many changes at once. This is a fundamental mistake.
Core - Segwit, LN
BU - dynamic block (EC), flextrans, sidechain.
Person -
A - Core
B - BU
C - segwit and sidechain
D - segwit and not LN
E - Flextrans and LN
F - Flextrans and sidechain
G - Flextrans and dynamic block but not sidechain
and so on. There too many combination of choices and thus many divisions. Therein lies the grievous errors.
I and many others (perhaps over 80%) support bigger block. Easy to raise 1mb to 2mb. Miners support 2mb in the Hong Kong agreement. Albeit with Segwit. Now that half the miners don't support segwit, common sense dictate that the only proposal on the table that will work is -
Z - raise blocksize to 2mb. See B above and it will becomes this -
B - 95% of the miners support increasing 1mb to 2mb. 95% of the users support it. BTC will now have 2mb limit. Everyone is now happy and the objectors will be happy when the value of BTC goes higher.
This could have be done last year or even 2 years ago. None of us would be here debating.
The moral of the story is that when dealing with $billions, one change at a time.
I suspect many will have many likes and dislikes, so where do you stand from A to Z?
The scenarios can be played out like this. Example.
A - 95% of the miners support increasing 21m coins to 30m coins. 95% of the users reject it. Users keep their money in BTC and very little goes into AltBTC. Users fire up their mining equipment and the miners mine a worthless low value coin that very few will buy. Miners will realise the errors of their ways and stop mining AltBTC and support BTC.
B - 95% of the miners support increasing 21m coins to 30m coins. 95% of the users support it. BTC will now mine 30m coins. Crazy it may be but what can the 5% do? Dump their coins?
C - 95% of the miners reject 21m coins to 30m coins. 95% of the users support it. Users keep their money in BTC and very little goes into AltBTC. Users fire up their mining equipment and the miners mine a worthless low value coin that very little will buy. Miners will realise the errors of their ways and stop mining AltBTC and support BTC. One then realise the users do have power over their money and that what create value.
The idea that 95% of the users want to increase the coins from 21m to 30m won't happen because it will devalue their BTC, and users are not that stupid, so don't worry.
Now there is division over BU and Core. Both have made grievous errors. Both are proposing so many changes at once. This is a fundamental mistake.
Core - Segwit, LN
BU - dynamic block (EC), flextrans, sidechain.
Person -
A - Core
B - BU
C - segwit and sidechain
D - segwit and not LN
E - Flextrans and LN
F - Flextrans and sidechain
G - Flextrans and dynamic block but not sidechain
and so on. There too many combination of choices and thus many divisions. Therein lies the grievous errors.
I and many others (perhaps over 80%) support bigger block. Easy to raise 1mb to 2mb. Miners support 2mb in the Hong Kong agreement. Albeit with Segwit. Now that half the miners don't support segwit, common sense dictate that the only proposal on the table that will work is -
Z - raise blocksize to 2mb. See B above and it will becomes this -
B - 95% of the miners support increasing 1mb to 2mb. 95% of the users support it. BTC will now have 2mb limit. Everyone is now happy and the objectors will be happy when the value of BTC goes higher.
This could have be done last year or even 2 years ago. None of us would be here debating.
The moral of the story is that when dealing with $billions, one change at a time.
Jump to: