Note: ONLY the first few paragraphs of this are a genuine query as to what is technically possible and likely. Read the remainder (those 'references' at the bottom) at your own peril!
One of the oft-used justifications by BTC Maxis for their claim that BTC 'will eat up all other coins' is that if / as / when anything of value comes out of the 'altcoin' space1 , they can simply integrate it and continue on their merry way ensuring no alts will ever threaten their top spot position. At first and largely un-technical glance, Moeing - if it fulfills its promise - looks to me to be a candidate the Maxis would like to have if it could in one hit potentially knock out two of their biggest threats (ETH & BCH).
Given the limits in my technical understanding, I'm not sure whether implementing Moeing (or something like it) on BTC would require a hard fork? In fact, I'm not even sure whether a hard fork I've seen referred to as being required for Moeing to switch from a federated to a trust-less (un-federated) sidechain model was referring to a hardfork of the sidechain or of BCH itself. This is intriguing to me because as many of us remeber, in their desperation to control the narrative of the block size debate, one of the necessary narratives was 'hard fork evil' which means they've painted themselves into a corner with it meaning it would likely require desperate times to reverse that decision even with such a juicy carrot on offer2.
1 with the exception, of course, of the cryptocurrency-as-money use case, which they appear to have written off, being not required among the primary use cases of their crypto (SoV first blahblah).
2 We do know, however, from Luke-jr's rantings around the time of their CTSTTRTLAEPWT3, that in the event that their fork ended up with virtually no hash power, the plan was to hard fork to a different hashing algo (and still maintain they had the claim to be the original, genuine, authentic, whatever Bitcoin)! So it is likely in the event of a plummeting popularity if / as / when it ever looks like they are going to lose the prime spot, they would likely swallow their pride (or if true to form, simply switch narrative again and claim despite the evidence that they never said otherwise) and HF. I may very well be wrong but I'm thinking maybe if their SoV-at-the-expense-of-everything-else experiment fails i.e. if / as / when they finally run out of greater fools, Moeing - or something very like it - is likely to be something they'll be wanting to jump on.
3 Commitment To Smash The Toys Rather Than Let Anyone Else Play With Them - No, wait... that's not what they called it was it... was it ITMTGTWDTMHSSXTBCNAWEACNWSVLSFSEGWIT4 ?
4 Intimidate The Miners To Get Their Way Despite The Miners Having Strongly Supported XT (Before Controlled Narrative) And Who (Even After Controlled Narrative) Were Showing Very Little Support for SEGWIT. No, I don't think that was it either. Now what was it they called it? Ah, I think I remember... LBEIMMIBTNMNATBAAEAAATTSARICOTPATMAABSAAWEEJ5 ?
5 Let's Brainwash Everyone Including Many Miners Into Believing That Non-Mining-Nodes Are The Be All And End All And Are Those Truly, Solely And Righteously In Charge Of The Protocol And That Miners Are At Best Servants And At Worst Evil (Especially Jihan). Mmmm, no, there's something that doesn't quite ring a bell there either.... Was it POSDOKSMP6 ?
6 Proof of Successful Domination of Key Social Media Platforms? Oooh, now I think I'm getting hot... hows about PoH6?
7 Proof of Hat.... Nooooooo stupid! It was UASF :D 8
8 User Activated Soft Fork - which had nothing at all to do with those other ideas above which of course have no basis in the reality of the history of Bitcoin and were just plucked out of thin air by me on my laughing-to-myself walk this morning :D (Thank you for tolerating my silliness)!
No comments:
Post a Comment