Last July there was a 6-block reorganization of the blockchain, the third largest in bitcoin's history. It was caused by a blocthed soft fork.
Nope, It was caused by SPV mining which is insecure and at minimum ill advised.
Sigh, I have had this discussion before, won't get into it again. "The staircase did not collapse because it was badly designed, but because two fat people walked on it at once."
Hard forks are not more dangerous than soft-forks. One can argue that they in fact safer, because they must be executed openly and be accepted in advance by a large segment of the users.
While we may disagree with the intrinsic dangers one can compare between HF and SF's from a technical perspective, I can also add that it is a fantastic precedent that we are making HF's rare and difficult to accomplish from a "governance" perspective. soft forks which allow upgrading without throwing old users/software/Hardware off the network is a fantastic precedence.
I could point out again that soft forks put the decision in the hands of FEWER people (as few as three miners in China). But it does not matter: whether they are safe or not, the community cannot prevent soft forks from hppening.
It is extremely re-assuring that a buttcoiner who hates bitcoin* is so angry at the direction we are headed. We should all be bullish. ... *it is pretty easy to verify you get sadistic pleasure off of attacking bitcoin on the buttcoin subreddit.
If and when the Core plans fail, it will be much more satisfying if they fail for the reasons that I and others have pointed out.
[Hard forks] are more dangerous if there is disagreement regarding their implementation, and they are more dangerous if they attempt to change bitcoin's governance in order to make changes (consensus rules) easier to achieve.
Bitcoin cannot have a "governance". If you do not understand that, then you don't understand the only thing that justifies its existence.
You keep going back over the point to argue against something that is not controverted, and it does not really matter, at this point how complicated it is, etc. etc.. because it is already in the pipeline to be implemented ...
I have no illusions of stopping SegWit. It is quite obvious already that no amount of technical argument from us idiots will change Greg Maxwell's mind once he made it up.
FUCD
Er, I must have slept through that too. What is the "C" in "FUCD"?
"secured by a network with 1.5 PH/s of mining power" .... LOL, really? Have you been asleep for the last 3 years Stolfi?
Sorry, I was half asleep when I typed that. It should have been 1500 PH/s of course.
Poll
