@memo how's it going with those child key derivation projects?
it could've gained more if it got the same attention, but without the contention and negative connotations.
The unified coin gained value due to the attention gained - same as with the stresstests.
Which is a dangerous path to take, and not one I can morally defend.
But right now, they are aren't competing to produce value; but some compete by destroying value.
As they should - miners should compete.
On that I can agree then, I too want to see the hashwar play out. Wish it happend in the S2X fork, but I'll take what I get.
They'd also start with a clear advantage in terms of social media presence, authority figures and control over communication platforms.
No, just like BCH they would start with some miners, a shared history, and vested interests by developers who share their ideology.
By "How it's done", if it encompass attacking those who produce value in the ecosystem, they will soon find themselves on a path of destruction and network effect leaving.
network effect is a human property here, and the smaller block faction with a new ticker may well have taken over the network effect.
It might not be that simple.
I don't think the Core roadmap, governance or behaviour is even remotely acceptable, but a large number of participants around the globe does, for now.
Core could well have remained a majority brand but with a new ticker, and miners would eventually have followed.
You're making assumptions that might not hold up there.
Bitcoin is a **voluntary** system of cooperation. You cannot force people to take part.
No, Core would've forked of and maintained their cultural identity, branding and value - while Jihan at best would've kept the ticker.
The destruction of value, ruthlessly attacking your peers, threats of economic damage and so on - is not how you maintain a coherent communities brand.
A brand is an idea and exist as a cooperation/link between humans. Hashpower can never maintain a brand - only humans can.
you do realize that mining empty blocks **is** growing the competing chain, right? it **is** still extending it.
You win by extending the longest valid chain. Valid as in accepted by your peers - and measured by having your coinbase spendable after maturity with some degree of value.
"mine empty blocks" - "the way bitcoin was intended to work" <- where can I read about this state of intent for the bitcoin network? It certaintly isn't in the whitepaper.
Maybe you should consider the case where the BTC/BCH split was not an attack, and the ABC/BSV is not either - they might just be differences in opinon and forking is the proper outcome.
I met with Rick Falkvinge who is a long-time user of BitID in berlin yesterday and talked about CashID. Got some valuable feedback and a few actionable items I can do to improve the specification.
