More On Forking

analytics

Late this week Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase, jumped on Twitter to express his view on hard forking bitcoin – by way of a Tweetstorm of course.

I personally think he makes some very salient points about approaching a fork of the bitcoin network. Given we’re a little over a month away from the second instalment of the Scaling Bitcoin conference (the next one will be in Hong Kong in early December), talk will soon be returning to scaling the network. Get ready, the conversations are going to heat up again shortly.

For those interested, I’ve reproduced the full Tweetstorm below – enjoy.


1/ I think hard forks are a necessary and good thing for bitcoin, if used sparingly

2/ They are a built in upgrade path for the protocol to change over time, will allow bitcoin to evolve much more quickly than HTTP etc.

3/ Hard forks are somewhat similar to a presidential election – having one every week would be too disruptive, but once every four years…

4/ Probably a good way to ensure forward progress

5/ I think there should be a number of competing forks, and if there is a loss of confidence in one group, a new group should be elected

6/ Each fork should have a final decision maker at the top (similar to how private companies, governments, etc work)

7/ This would prevent stalemates and ensure speed of execution.

8/ But saying hard forks are bad/scary is sort of missing the point. “Vote with your CPU power” is one of the most brilliant aspects of btc

9/ And is one of the things that gives me confidence in its long term success

See also  Yes, Bitcoin Is An Absolute Sh** Show

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.