[Bitcoin-development] questions about bitcoin-XT code fork & non-consensus hard-fork

Sean Lynch seanl at literati.org
Mon Jun 29 19:48:04 PDT 2015


On Mon, Jun 29, 2015, 16:41 coderman <coderman at gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/28/15, Sean Lynch <seanl at literati.org> wrote:
> Which means that those with a stake in Bitcoin are better off if a fork
> becomes popular than if an altcoin does, because if a fork becomes popular
> they will already have a stake in the fork, whereas if the altcoin becomes
> popular at the expense of Bitcoin they will have nothing.

you make lots of false dichotomies here, neglecting the variations in
exchange value between these possible altcoins and forks.

"will have nothing" is not correct.
  maybe a little, maybe a lot, but more than "nothing"


 I'm simplifying out of necessity. Obviously there are intermediate
outcomes possible.



> Of course, if a
> fork undermines faith in Bitcoin without becoming popular, everyone will
be
> screwed.

totally screwed - this is where the heated passions about a non-census
hard fork come in. lives on the line, in a not so exaggerated sense.


Yes. And a failure to accept responsibility for one's own decisions. Anyone
gambling everything on Bitcoin right now is an idiot, in my view. Their
opinions should be discounted as they have proven their own judgement
lacking. Perhaps they will be vindicated, but the fact that you happen to
win a poker hand you played badly doesn't retroactively mean you played the
hand well. It means you got lucky.

and by no means am i threating anyone with harm!  i am explaining that
when someone puts  the last half decade of their life and fortune into
a thing, messing with it will always generate inflamed arguments.
regardless of if you're ultimately right or not.

Never said you were the one making threats, and I agree this sort of thing
will create inflamed passions. All the more reason to try to filter out the
opinions of  those with a large stake.

i don't care how you describe that messing, consensus or not, it's
poking in sensitive places all the same...


 A fact that makes Satoshi's decision to remain anonymous seem even wiser
in retrospect. Perhaps this will be required of any such system in the
future.


> But I don't think this is likely; either it will become popular
> and we'll all be better off, or it will flop and nobody will care.

"not likely" - you're going to gamble livelihoods on a hunch that it's
not likely?


I'm not proposing anyone gambling anything. The gambling is being done by
those holding Bitcoin. Holding Bitcoin places no obligation on anyone else.
It's not a stock or bond or other instrument with an associated contract.


you can see why many are so reluctant - the due diligence is lacking
and the demeanor more experiment than careful transition...


I doubt there is anything the larger stakeholders (as fraction of their net
worth) would accept as due diligence. Nor is any required to start a fork.
Any due diligence is the responsibility of those choosing to operate on the
fork. Those involved should do it to maintain their reputations, but if
they don't, and people get burned, their reputations will suffer. Death
threats and advance pseudo-democracy not required.


 best regards,
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 4165 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20150630/eceeface/attachment-0002.txt>


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list