> Anyone who opposes this change, or doesn’t know about it,
> or simply forgets to update their client software, can
> excise themselves from the network.
>
>Thus, hard forks are the most democratic means of consensus on earth today.
I really don't agree. If you can't maintain yout non-forked version yourself,
you are basically forced to agree. Otherwise, you'll be soon left out.
As soon as you are forced to upgrade, your client will be accepting such
transfers.
So here it goes: by pushing hard-forks of the software, the strength of
Bitcoin is basically being circumvented.
If this goes, Bitcoin is definitely dead.
I'm sorry for Ross Ulbricht for his loss, but we really should not be doing this.
I don't know if this is sarcasm, but I believe the article is definitely tongue in cheek to push the issue about where we should draw the line.
I completely agree with your comment. In my mind, cryptocurrencies offer no real protection. The people that need protecting are the minority, but in practice the people that will get protection are the majority.
People saying that they don't have to use the hard fork of ethereum are only demonstrating the problems with the system.
In principle our government is designed to operate where the disenfranchised are entitled to the same protection as the rich (whether or not that is implemented well isn't really the point of this post).
Ethereum's response is "hey create a fork proposal and see if people will vote on it". Its a bit like asking someone without much money to go get 51% of the Americas vote so that a new law can be passed and he can get justice. Instead I would rather have a set of rules that transactions are bound to and people can't change after the fact (such a simple concept) that allow anyone to seek justice.
With the rich on ethereum (I think I read 25% of the vote came from 1 person) being able to retroactively changes laws, its far worse than most first-world government structures today.
Basically, it's trying to say that if you're OK with the Ethereum hard fork, you should be OK with this BIP intended to give Ross Ulbricht (who operated the Silk Road) the Bitcoins back the FBI confiscated from him. Which is obviously absurd.
4 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 27.8 ms ] threadAs soon as you are forced to upgrade, your client will be accepting such transfers.
So here it goes: by pushing hard-forks of the software, the strength of Bitcoin is basically being circumvented.
If this goes, Bitcoin is definitely dead.
I'm sorry for Ross Ulbricht for his loss, but we really should not be doing this.
I completely agree with your comment. In my mind, cryptocurrencies offer no real protection. The people that need protecting are the minority, but in practice the people that will get protection are the majority.
People saying that they don't have to use the hard fork of ethereum are only demonstrating the problems with the system.
In principle our government is designed to operate where the disenfranchised are entitled to the same protection as the rich (whether or not that is implemented well isn't really the point of this post).
Ethereum's response is "hey create a fork proposal and see if people will vote on it". Its a bit like asking someone without much money to go get 51% of the Americas vote so that a new law can be passed and he can get justice. Instead I would rather have a set of rules that transactions are bound to and people can't change after the fact (such a simple concept) that allow anyone to seek justice.
With the rich on ethereum (I think I read 25% of the vote came from 1 person) being able to retroactively changes laws, its far worse than most first-world government structures today.
Basically, it's trying to say that if you're OK with the Ethereum hard fork, you should be OK with this BIP intended to give Ross Ulbricht (who operated the Silk Road) the Bitcoins back the FBI confiscated from him. Which is obviously absurd.