Published on: 2015-06-27T17:36:50+00:00
In a thought-provoking comparison, the author of an email to a Bitcoin mailing list draws parallels between Bitcoin and Windows 3.11. The crux of their argument lies in the backward compatibility aspect of both systems. While they debate whether Bitcoin should follow the path of Windows 95, XP, Pro, etc., and undergo updates, an important point is overlooked.The comparison fails to acknowledge that running a program written for Windows 95 on a Windows 3.11 computer would be impossible if everyone upgraded to Windows 95. This is due to the absence of cross-compilers from Windows 95 to Windows 3.11. Similarly, the author highlights the issue of spending coins with post-hardfork coinbase outputs in their input tree on the no-change side of the fork, which poses a challenge.Considering the dilemma faced by those who choose not to upgrade and have funds tied up in the platform, the author raises valid concerns about the future of Bitcoin. They question whether it should remain as it is, with newer and better programs being developed exclusively for the updated versions. To address this debate, the author proposes a constructive solution. They suggest that representatives from both sides of the issue come together and appoint a developer representative. By working collaboratively, they can establish a framework that takes into account the interests of all stakeholders involved. This approach aims to find a middle ground between progress and the preservation of existing investments within the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T14:05:11.809297+00:00