Maybe I'm alone in this, but I'd argue it's working exactly as intended. Some of the other people who also perceive that to be a problem have produced some code and released it into the open market to compete. Whilst others are working on some different code and will release that in November.
Everyone's doing what they think is best for the future, even if a decidedly vocal rabble constantly bitch about it or call it an attack.
We've literally never had it so good. At all times, users are free to decide which code they wish to use. And even if you can't decide, or want to wait for a while before you decide, or don't want to make a decision at all, it doesn't even matter if you hold coins before any fork. You can just watch events unfold and decide to switch clients later, or go with the flow. I don't get why people are so upset about this, aside from being misled by the utterly mistaken belief that there should be a centralised authority in control, which runs wholly contrary to the entire concept behind Bitcoin.
The amount of control in Bitcoin is limited to the following.
As a user, you have control over:
and how much you complain about how the other two groups don't agree with you (but you don't get to tell them what to do).
As a developer, you have control over:
and how much you complain about how the other two groups don't agree with you (but you don't get to tell them what to do).
As a miner, you have control over:
and how much you complain about how the other two groups don't agree with you (but you don't get to tell them what to do).
And finally, you also have control over being involved in more than one of these categories, if you so choose, or even all three.
But that's about it.
No developer overlords making all the decisions. No miner overlords making all the decisions. No user (activated softfork
) overlords making all the decisions. If anyone advocates any of those things, they need to seriously consider what it is they're actually asking for, because I think any of those outcomes results in a weaker Bitcoin, not a stronger one. As paradoxical as it sounds, everyone has just enough control in order to make it so that no one has overall control. That's how it should be.
Everything else is a mix of freedom, incentivisation, competition, equilibrium and consensus.
The forkers are NOT trying to kill BTC.
Everyone's doing what they think is best for the future, even if a decidedly vocal rabble constantly bitch about it or call it an attack.
We've literally never had it so good. At all times, users are free to decide which code they wish to use. And even if you can't decide, or want to wait for a while before you decide, or don't want to make a decision at all, it doesn't even matter if you hold coins before any fork. You can just watch events unfold and decide to switch clients later, or go with the flow. I don't get why people are so upset about this, aside from being misled by the utterly mistaken belief that there should be a centralised authority in control, which runs wholly contrary to the entire concept behind Bitcoin.
The amount of control in Bitcoin is limited to the following.
As a user, you have control over:
- Your private keys (and corresponding wealth)
- Which software you choose to run
- The chain you wish to transact on
- Whether you run a full node and influence the rules enforced on your desired chain, or just rely on SPV
and how much you complain about how the other two groups don't agree with you (but you don't get to tell them what to do).
As a developer, you have control over:
- The code you produce and the rules you ideally want your own client to enforce
- Which direction in development you would like your own client to follow
- The chain you wish to develop upon
- Any repositories you might be in charge of
and how much you complain about how the other two groups don't agree with you (but you don't get to tell them what to do).
As a miner, you have control over:
- How much you wish to invest in hardware
- What you do with your block reward coins
- The mining pool you want to contribute to at any given time
- Which software you choose to run and, causally, which chain you choose to mine
and how much you complain about how the other two groups don't agree with you (but you don't get to tell them what to do).
And finally, you also have control over being involved in more than one of these categories, if you so choose, or even all three.
But that's about it.
No developer overlords making all the decisions. No miner overlords making all the decisions. No user (activated softfork
) overlords making all the decisions. If anyone advocates any of those things, they need to seriously consider what it is they're actually asking for, because I think any of those outcomes results in a weaker Bitcoin, not a stronger one. As paradoxical as it sounds, everyone has just enough control in order to make it so that no one has overall control. That's how it should be. Everything else is a mix of freedom, incentivisation, competition, equilibrium and consensus.
The forkers are NOT trying to kill BTC.
Well said! I guarantee you're not alone in this. There are still far too few camps to be the only one in any
By words and action, I see myself in the biggest camp of them all: users who wait, see, and choose the solution that works and is (or seems) easiest. And that actually works too, as developers and miners ultimately are influenced by what (they perceive) users feel is best.Like you said: we've actually got quite a good system that is actually working. Anyone is free to do as they will or are able to, and yet cannot dictate on their own what others must do. And as you point out, none of the discussions, arguments, even the whining, are forced on anyone. We're free to be annoyed by them, add to them, or stay oblivious.
Bitcoin isn't broken, and no one is trying to kill it. It's playing out the way it was designed to.