Author: Chris D'Costa 2015-09-01 10:16:04
Published on: 2015-09-01T10:16:04+00:00
The idea of a no-holds-barred, anything-goes Bitcoin fork that would allow for valuable experimentation has been suggested by Peter R, which is different from an alt-coin as it would be undoubtedly unstable until consensus is reached. However, the lack of incentive poses a problem. Adam Back believes that this course of action is not well thought through and Bitcoin is a consensus system that does not work if there are incompatible versions of consensus code competing on the network. He suggests that people with a technical interest should analyse and validate others' proposals via testing or make their own proposals so that we can arrive at a well-validated upgrade mechanism that everyone upgrades to in a coordinated fashion. Encouraging nodes or miners to "vote" by running different consensus rules is not constructive and risks politicizing a purely technical topic of choosing the best approach. Peter R's suggestion to kill Bitcoin Core and allow new implementations to grow from its fertile ashes is not supported by Adam Back who encourages keeping things constructive and focusing on analysing proposals.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T21:43:20.612783+00:00