1/ On hard forks, I'm with @gavinandresen. Risks of not increasing block size seem > increasing. Miners will go where users & exchanges go.
-
-
Replying to @twobitidiot
2/ There's precedent for how miners behave during a hard fork (2013) & until sidechains are ready in 2016+, need bigger block size...
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @twobitidiot
3/ Otherwise
#bitcoin functionality breaks down. Users lose trust, value / confidence breaks down, etc.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @twobitidiot
4/ But set aside the tech arguments. Look at the politics: there will be hard forks in the future, best to test
#bitcoin's resilience now.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @twobitidiot
5/ Governments fighting money laundering could try to hard fork network.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @twobitidiot
6/ Anyone who wishes to change the underlying consensus algo good fork because they don't like "wasteful" or centralized PoW.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @twobitidiot
7/ Perhaps most importantly, I see a hard fork coming in 5+ years regardless of sidechains success: changing 21mm bitcoin hard cap.
8 replies 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @twobitidiot
8/ Future miners add 1-2% inflation rate to supply to keep txn fees low: satisfies mainstream econ & caps implied txn fee below V/MC rates.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
.@twobitidiot so now you want to change the 21million cap? wow.
-
-
Thanks. 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.