Author: Mike Hearn 2015-06-18 13:49:06
Published on: 2015-06-18T13:49:06+00:00
In a discussion about the hard fork process, it is pointed out that any user who does not upgrade their node during a fork is not fully verifying the blockchain anymore. There is a divergence in consensus, and double spending may occur. Additionally, the idea that Bitcoin is not a democracy is disputed, as trade inherently involves the decisions of other people, and the majority belief about the ledger is important for trading. It is argued that changing the rules should be possible with wide consensus, but nobody should be forced to change their code against their will. The lack of ability to push for controversial changes sets a dangerous precedent, and the need for a mechanism for people to disagree with the consensus is emphasized. The block chain provides a way to object without bringing Bitcoin to a halt. The importance of having a clear process for making decisions is noted.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T23:26:15.325950+00:00