...
My only point in my comment was that "compromises" may be a misunderstanding
of Bitcoin and how it was intended to function. Satoshi did not compromise and
didn't intended to create a system that needs to have compromises.
There will
always be a losing party in this type of system due to the blockchain system itself. Finding a middle path, between the hard and soft fork, if possible, would have
already occurred. What is occurring now is a slow negotiation that the community
needs to go through till they inevitably learn that it is futile and they have been
confused.
When this is all said and done, someone will give in or perform a contentious
hardfork. The term "compromise", is like Santa Claus, its what we tell the children
to keep them busy. Something will occur eventually, but a "compromise" is unlikely.
If everyone just followed the principles of the original whitepaper as a "Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System", instead of trying to change it into something else then there would be no "losing party." The only losers would be those trying to turn Bitcoin into .....
The blockchain system is a settlement system as designed. With settlement, there
is technically a winning party and losing party. That is what protects us from
doublespends within our system. It is not actually cash-like, but more like checks.
My statement, that you highlighted in red, refers to there being a single chain and
that there will be a winning chain and a losing chain. You could say that the blockchain
also prevents "doublechains" (in theory). So by it's nature, compromises are
not acceptable. It is one or the other.
Anyway, you could say that Satoshi actually created a P2P E-Checking System.
Because he called it "E-Cash" doesn't make it so. Sometimes he even called it "E-Gold".
So which one is it? E-Cash, E-Checks, or E-Gold? Satoshi didn't even know himself,
and said what he believed at that moment of time. He was learning with all of us and
his paper was not a final product, but the final product of his solo work. The whitepaper
was his attempt to convince others of the merit, not its perfection.
If you actually paid attention to what he wrote afterwards, instead of just the whitepaper,
you will understand that he was trying to solve larger issues and the E-Cash/Gold
component was just one little part of the whole. Sometimes his answers were great
and other times his answers ignored major faults. Whatever the correct answers are,
it surely is not "the whitepaper", since that is a 8+ year old proposal that Satoshi
prepared only for peer review and consideration. It was not perfected. For example,
the whitepaper doesn't even contain all the details about number of coins, blockheights,
halvings and etc. That all came after the whitepaper. So Satoshi wrote E-Cash in the
whitepaper, but programmed E-Gold into the protocol.
So, if you have a problem that people are not following the "principles of the original
whitepaper" you should write a PM/Email to Satoshi and ask him why he himself
violated those principles with his own first client design/protocol.