Eric, >FWIW...
These are all good points and I agree with most of them. Yes, the block size debate is a lucky historical accident, which makes it easier for XT to pull off the split, but that's not the point. The point is, the split _must_ happen because the centralized governance of Bitcoin became a bigger problem than the risks of a fork or larger blocks. You cannot govern a decentralized currency with a centralized entity. That's why we shouldn't fear hard forks - they are the new reality, and if we cannot set up a reliable process for them to happen then there _is_ no decentralized Bitcoin and we all might as well just give up and go home. ---- And that's why it would be nice to have a more complex voting mechanism in the block header (see this proposal for the new header format, for example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1151698) and other initiatives to make forking more reliable and user choice easier. This is a better path than trying to suppress all forks by dictatorship methods of the few currently in power. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
