-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 03/25/2017 01:28 PM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> In the case of the coming network upgrade to larger blocks, a
primary concern [...] is the possibility of a blockchain split and the
associated confusion, replay risk, etc.
> [...] a minority that does not want to abide by the [hard fork]
ruleset enforced by the majority could change the proof-of-work and
start a spin-off from the existing Bitcoin ledger [...]
The "spin off" to which you refer is an altcoin. The "network upgrade"
to which you refer is also an altcoin. Both are hard forks from
Bitcoin. I'm having a hard time imagining how a plan to create two new
altcoins from Bitcoin avoids either a split or confusion.
Application of hash power toward the disruption of Bitcoin presumes
participating miners are willing to accept a total loss on these
operations. I can imagine a significant portion of the hash power
deciding to let their competitors donate to "confusion reduction".
Eventually those thrifty miners will put the philanthropists out of
business. Maybe you can get Coinbase and Bitpay to finance the operation
This plan seems to be a response to the industry call for replay
protection. Actually writing the code is another option.
> once a super-majority of the network hash power has upgraded.
Despite the fact that nobody (miners included) has any way to measure
what software the economy (or hash power) is running, or what is the
economic weight of that portion of the economy.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
bitcoin-dev mailing list