Minority's experiments can use alts (or sidechains when available) to compete with no externalities. Forks try to gain notoriety at the expense of generating externalities and should be considered attacks to the main chain.
-
-
Replying to @fnietom @Truthcoin
How does what you say here relate to my question at all?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanielKrawisz @Truthcoin
It illustrates how forks are not needed to compete. Unless you consider attacks a legit tool to do so... If this practice becomes widespread Bitcoin will be forced to defend itself until it disappears.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fnietom @Truthcoin
Once again duh! the very idea of competition means that the competator can win. I think forks are better at winning so I prefer those.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanielKrawisz @Truthcoin
No, forks are not better at winning, violence has a negative net value. BCH and BTG only 'succeeded' because Bitcoin wasn't prepared and assumed the cost, instead of defending itself, but externalizing your costs is not a sustainable strategy in the long run.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Economic violence is price discovery.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Fernando Nieto Retweeted Will 🗣️ 🌐
True, violence expectation will be priced in forked coins, which answers your other tweet:https://twitter.com/fluidfluxation/status/975939388243959808 …
Fernando Nieto added,
Will 🗣️ 🌐 @FluidFluxationReplying to @fnietom @DanielKrawisz @TruthcoinYou can't stop people from forking bitcoin. You could try to implement protocols that punish miners for doing work on minority chains that have (temporarily) higher profitability, but that would be another fork. Besides, that sounds a lot like socialism.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Doesnt prevent forking. You can call forking an attack on the network, I don't care for label games. I'm saying you cant stop forking where economic incentives for it exist, and to restrict those incentives restricts the entire chain.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I’m against forks creating more damage than benefit, so incentives should work in our side.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You perceiving forks as damaging does not change economic incentive structures for miners. & hive mind prediction engines are not the answer, economically incentived hashpower is, which we already have. Model isnt broken. Forks will deserve to survive or die on their own merits.pic.twitter.com/9mOUmqTjfS
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes
Will 🗣️ 🌐 Retweeted Fernando Nieto
We already have a market based solution. Proof of work.https://twitter.com/fnietom/status/975989495106555904?s=19 …
Will 🗣️ 🌐 added,
-
-
Sorry, I see you are far from understanding it, and I don’t have time to explain it to you.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.