Why the constant push to have only the one blockchain? - page 5.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on February 05, 2015, 11:37:06 AM

How would you impliment this change? I see no reason for business to be against the idea. If they had the proper warning they could adjust. Why would it need to devalue the current coins we all hold?

I don't see why it needs to "devalue" Bitcoin at all actually - some of the use cases for Blockchains are simply "bloat" that would be far better off separated.

QuestionAuthority

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1393

You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

How would you impliment this change? I see no reason for business to be against the idea. If they had the proper warning they could adjust. Why would it need to devalue the current coins we all hold?

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Although I am not against the 1MB block size limit being raised it seems to me that the entire point of "decentralisation" seems to have escaped the Bitcoin project (the core devs at least mostly seem to be completely against having other blockchains).

I certainly understand that the Bitcoin Foundation is going to have that opinion (for financial reasons) and I can understand a lot of people heavily invested in Bitcoin (such as the Winklevoss twins) also having that opinion.

But any "rational" person would surely think that having other blockchains (with different code and proofs) cannot be a *bad* thing as it alleviates the "one point of failure" that we will otherwise always have.

I don't see how "one blockchain" is ever going to service the needs of everyone (without requiring a ridiculous amount of space and without having near instant confirmations) so IMO it is simply inevitable that we are going to need many.

Topic: Why the constant push to have only the one blockchain? - page 5. (Read 2897 times)