Quote from: Lauda on October 09, 2016, 06:56:54 AM

Well, IMO doing a hard fork on Bitcoin just to increase the block size limit to X is horribly inefficient. The HF should be packed with things that are required, but can only be done with a HF (since we know these are not, and will not be a often thing with Bitcoin).

Yes i would only agree to a hardfork if it would be absolute life-death situation and they would give people enough time to prepare, but we know that there is no imminent danger to bitcoin.

So the only hardfork would be improvement/patch type of hardfork, and for that there is plenty of time, like announce it 1 year ahead and let the market and the community adjust.

But there is absolute no need for that currently, just look at the altcoins, all of them think they are superior to bitcoin in some way, but none of them come even close to bitcoin in market cap? How is this possible if they are so great.

So the market is choosing Bitcoin, and it would be foolish to go against the market, if a hardfork were to happen on bitcoin now, it would drop at least 80% in value in my opinion.

So even though all these patches and uppgrades sound attractive, the market doesnt want them, so there is no need for that.

Think of IPV4, nobody wants to change it because it would break the entire internet, instead they just roll in IPV6 which will slowly replace it. The same should apply to Bitcoin as well.

Now that we will have sidechains, and many apps built on it, it would be even harder to hardfork.

So if somebody wants to "hardfork" bitcoin, go copy the code, add your patches, and name it BITCOIN 2.0, and let's see how big a market can can you achieve. Judging by the altcoins today, probably not much.

That should be the only way to hardfork bitcoin, and many people failed by doing that. So the people who want to force nodes to uppgrade, are totalitarians, or just plain stupid people.