Quote from: tvbcof on November 12, 2013, 12:13:14 AM

Quote from: corebob on November 11, 2013, 11:21:17 PM

Quote from: LaudaM on November 11, 2013, 11:00:40 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on November 11, 2013, 10:34:44 PM

Took a little while for me to find it, but here you go:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49841.0

It'll probably make for some interesting reading now that we have some hind-sight, but I've not bothered yet.

Thank you for your share.
The ANN thread is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.0

Hopefully we won't regret the opinions of those members, too much. At least now we have somewhere to point our fingers at, once this goes wrong.

The Linux project is already about to become the backyard project of a few multinational corporations.
Its a good model but at some point in the future the community might have to be prepared to fork.
What I'm trying to figure out is if there is any way to ruin the currency without breaking the current protocol. If it is, we have a problem. Even the developers knows that

One of the things that has been high on my mind since very soon after I studied Bitcoin was what happens in the case of a code fork? That can actually be noted in my post on the aformentioned thread in fact.

Because I feel it likely that the existing blockchain will form a value core for whatever fork becomes dominant, I figure that I'll just wait it out. Nobody can transfer value without a secret key, and a fork which makes that possible will probably not become the successful one. (Though it is more possible that the successful fork will force a value transfer which would suck.)

The main problem is that sitting on BTC without spending it is quite inconsistent with an _exchange_ currency. Bitcoin being couched as such will lose a lot of credibility and confidence in the case of an otherwise not terribly threatening event such as a code fork.

As of a day or two when I thought of it, I like to say "Bitcoin is in it's infancy...it hasn't even hit it's first code/core team fork yet."

Just to clearify...

What I meant is that changing the current protocol in a non compatible way will force a fork, and the fork will win no doubt.
If it is possible to make a change on top of the current protocol that say removes anonymity, a fork is needed, and should technically work side by side with the new version.
A fork that is not backward compatible will never work imo.