Quote from: ArticMine on August 04, 2014, 01:45:19 AM

Quote from: BTCtrader71 on August 04, 2014, 01:33:55 AM

Quote from: ArticMine on August 04, 2014, 01:17:00 AM

Quote from: BTCtrader71 on August 04, 2014, 12:47:39 AM

...
ArticMine - what do you think about the spin off method described in Peter R's post?

It is an interesting proposal that can work if there is a very clear vote and hence valuation one way or the other. Where it can get real messy and problematic is if there is close to an even split or even significant vote for the minority chain. Then the uncertainty created can cause a significant overall loss of trust. The reality is that a hard fork only works with strong consensus and my thought is that Peter R's proposal will expose that reality. Having said this it may in the end have to come down to a spin off method solution as a last resort.

It sounds like one of those drastic measures that would probably never actually have to be implemented. Having said that, one of the biggest if not the number one chief threat to bitcoin as a long term store of value is that it could get replaced by an alt. If that ever looked like it might actually happen, I would imagine it would not be difficult to reach a consensus that the above plan would be preferable to watching the value of bitcoin plummet. So it is comforting, at least, to know something like that MIGHT be implement-able.

So, my thought process tells me that perhaps the chief threat to bitcoin is not replacement by an alt, but rather, fragmentation of community consensus. (Which could be the result of threat from an alt, or could come from who knows what.) Methods of managing community consensus is a problem that seems very interesting, although I have not seen it much discussed.

One of the most effective ways to get a community to pull together is a serious threat. This is just human nature and it is why there was strong consensus for the 2013 fork. So a fast rising alt may well generate the necessary consensus.

Correct me if I'm wrong: when we talk about consensus, we mean consensus among the miners. And if the top mining pools agreed on another blocksize limit fork, the rest would probably follow. Correct?