I have always bought more, I have always used BCH as a currency whenever i can (purse.io) comes to mind because that was where i spent most of it.
So here we are. 2 sides are at war and theres a huge amount of disinformation.
I think the key here is to understand BOTH SIDES WANT WHAT IS BEST FOR BITCOIN CASH. Thats right, I believe they both TRULY WANT THE BEST. so heres the thing, this hash war is going to continue until someone goes bankrupt or someone just cuts their losses. I dont know how long this will take and frankly dont care.
What I do not agree with, if there was this much of a contention between sides as seen through the hash prior to the fork, WHY DID WE RUSH INTO THIS HEADSTRONG AND CHANGE THE PROTOCOLS?
More time was needed before any changes were made IMO.
Thats the past and it cannot be changed. Going forward though i think it is of paramount importance to allow the natural progression of this war to be settled with purly hash power. even if the hash war is won by someone you do not agree with that is the reality - youre not always going to agree with someone on something.
So lets say that one side wins and guide us down the path they are envisioning... The side that lost has plenty of time to re-organize a counter argument and gain support. However, If the winning side proves to be successful then the losing side wont gain any traction. If the winning side is not successful in the market then people may re-consider and go with the losing side for the next protocol change.
This is how things should be working. Adding code that attempts to eliminate nakamoto consensus is not the path forward. (not that i think checkpoints can even stop a real attack... but it is the intent that bothers me.)
I also dont appreciate the social media attempt from ABC telling everyone to get rid of SV. If Wu wanted to get rid of SV he can do it himself, but he hasnt. IM NOT SAYING HES A BAD PERSON OR WANTS BAD THINGS FOR BITCOIN - i am saying that he is making decisions that assume CRAIG and CALVIN are an attacker when in fact they are equally concerned about the well being of bitcoin.
The key point here is that both parties are trying to take bitcoin on the path they believe is best and are voting through using hash power as intended (and this can take time). the governing model is to follow hash, if you want to have a say, then go buy some hash. If you want to fight against something fight against the idea that someone is ATTACKING and any preventative measures to stop the "ATTACK" because clearly SV is not an attack.
a person who has both coins will be safe no matter what, and a person like myself who truly believes in one side will lose it all if the other wins. if i lose it is my fault.
EDIT: IF SV "Attacked" abc to re-org , the only people hurt are the businesses and the exchanges who preemptively sided with someone (a gamble) to make a hasty decision not based on the outcome of the war. The user with both coins does not lose anything. The gambler has chosen to take risk and if loses everything thats their fault.
in the future do you want your governance model weakened? some decisions now will determine that.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
No comments:
Post a Comment