One of the arguments that I’ve seen recently against Bitcoin Cash is that accepting hard forks (like increasing the block size) trivializes hard forks and major changes to the code which makes it more likely that the 21 million limit could be changed in the future.
The argument goes that if developers and miners can hard fork for 8mb block size limit, and then again to 32mb, what is to say they won’t hard form for a inflationary monetary policy in the future.
The argument that the failure to change the block size on BTC shows that the code can’t be changed—and that hard forks can’t happen–misses the point.
The failure to increase the block size shows is that the core developers have control of the code, and will do what is in their self-interest (incentivizing the creation of second layer tech).
Like a turkey born after Thanksgiving gets more and more confident in his future security as each new day passes when his death is actually quickly approaching, the BTC community is more confident, but the fundamental risk hasn’t changed.
The failure to increase the block size limit shouldn’t make you any more sure that the code won’t change in dramatic ways, but it should make you more sure that the core developers will do whatever serves them best (whether that requires a hard fork, or not).
Leave a Reply