pull down to refresh
130 sats \ 4 replies \ @cointastical 25 Jul 2022 \ parent \ on: "Dormant" Bank Accounts bitcoin
There has been discussion on a hard fork that has "tail emissions". Some have been making the argument that "lost" coins (i.e., dormant) could be the source for these tail emissions.
I don't agree ... just the messenger.
I've seen some people talk about tail emissions, but I don't foresee it being likely. It especially won't go through so long as the miner subsidy is in effect. I've seen other solutions to an empty block without miner subsidy scenario. I don't think tail emissions are the right solution.
reply
The thing is, ... anyone can hard fork with whatever change they want. Bigger blocks., tail emissions, ... even bigger blocks + tail emissions, whatever.
Could we end up with another split like what happened when BCashers thought they were smarter back half a decade ago? I'ld bet two bits and a Hot Toddy that it happens again.
reply
um lol. Yes anyone can hard fork the code, but if you don't get social consensus it will be understood that your hard fork is not Bitcoin.
Its been explained to me before that there are layers to consensus
Miner consensus => What order transactions go in
Full node consensus => What blocks are valid according to the rules of Bitcoin
Social consensus => What is Bitcoin/Which chain is Bitcoin
You just can't get social consensus without consent. Social consensus means you'll get full node consensus which pay the miners to give you miner consensus.
reply
BCash didn't have social consensus. They had changed the rules, and then went forward with that along with a chunk of the bitcoin value, mindshare, hashrate, etc. Was it bitcoin? No. Was it harmful to bitcoin? Absolutely.
Could it happen again? I wouldn't doubt it.
Here's a lead belligerent.
Peter Todd on Bitcoin Inflation (Bitcoin Takeover Podcast)
#49500
https://bitcoin-takeover.com/audio/?name=2022-07-25_s11_e11_peter_todd_on_bitcoin_inflation__lightning__privacy.mp3
reply