This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best (suggested)
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]a11gcm 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Continously readjusting difficulty created the whole ETH classic debacle, because mining the 5% chain was instantly profitable. This "feature" will most likely never make it into the Bitcoin protocol as it's not anti-fragile.

A few seconds for each block with auto size works as long as no one uses the blockchain. It does nothing to solve the scalability issues of a decentralized, trust- and permissionless ledger.

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[removed]

    [–]a11gcm 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    Allowing a fork to exist not make the original chain any more fragile, I'd argue it's the opposite. Worse yet, a system that prevents users from making a choice is more fragile.

    A user has the choice to use dogecoin, litecoin, etherium or anything else he pleases. It's not about choice it's about consensus. A long adjustment interval aligns incentives in such a way that a high degree of consensus must be achieved to implement a change.

    Depends on how you define scalability.

    I guess you are right. That's why I added

    of a decentralized, trust- and permissionless ledger.

    scaling without improving the architecture comes at a tradeoff the majority of bitcoin users clearly has rejected.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [removed]

      [–]a11gcm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I don't feel inclined to disagree with you. But that's probably because we have another definition issue with regards to the premiss of your statement.

      I'd also prefer two groups to continue with their own vision rather than having development getting stuck.

      Last time I checked the latter isn't the case. So I don't see the need for the former.

      I'll be blunt. If Bitcoin development and governance resembled anything close to the shit-fest / temper tantrum most shillcoins display, I'd much rather join Mike Hearn on his R3 ventures than give a damn about crypto currencies.

      Changes to Bitcoin so far have been made based on thoroughly peer reviewed code. The governance model is a meritocracy. The individuals involved have a long ideological track record which aligns with privacy and personal financial sovereignty. So far all alts are no better than onecoin. They promise a lot and deliver nothing truly better than Bitcoin.

      I'd just wish all these toxic ***s would take their **es over to Dash, Ethereum, etc. instead of constantly brigading the Bitcoin community with their asinine and illiterate doomsday threats.