Post
Topic
Board Development & Technical Discussion
Re: Moving towards user activated soft fork activation
by
iCEBREAKER
on 06/03/2017, 04:10:23 UTC

When I remember all the things bitcoin "needed", but has failed to get, it makes me smile.

I remember when bitcoin needed more merchants, although less drug dealers because it was a bad press.

Then bitcoin needed to be much more user friendly - so much that even Gavin's granny could use it.

Then the client needed to be compatible with external hardware wallets, because they were the future.

Then it needed to have a bigger blocks, so it could "scale - or segwit for the same reason.

Then it needed to have tx malleability removed, so some people could deploy their existing side-chain solution.

(that's just from the top of my head, from the past 5+ years)

Today bitcoin needs to get rid of the miners, because... they are endangering its future by doing their job of securing the protocol Shocked
Plus nobody is going to say, but it's also noting that it would not have been such a big issue, if the miners were Americans... or at least white Smiley

Fuck knows what bitcoin is going to need tomorrow, in order to "succeed".
When I think about this, it's actually quite shocking that it has succeeded that far. Smiley

+1  great point

We will invariably move towards systems which successfully interface with Bitcoin as it works now.

It's not a "great point" it's a smug, cherry-picked, self-referential list topped with a red herring about "Americans."

If the original Satoshi client never needed anything we wouldn't now be at 0.14.x, dozens of BIPs and thousands of LOCs later.

Nationality and race have nothing to do with it, other than the fact the guy (Jihan) bamboozled and/or bribed by the felonious, very white, and formerly American Roger into blocking segwit happens to be from China.