I’ve read the article and commented there.
There are still questions.
Here is a terrible article, but followed by what seem, by contrast, to be sensible comments by Han Chen (Virginia Tech. https://www.facebook.com/han.chen.9674):
Editor's Note: It was brought to my attention via Twitter that there was confusion regarding whether Bitcoin will…www.wealthdaily.com
“So where are we now?
Currently, 80% of the mining power, and a number of exchanges and Bitcoin services have signed onto a “segwit2x” roadmap. This roadmap will likely activate SegWit through a softfork (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal, or BIP, 141) mid-August, 2017, and activate 2mb (BIP102) through a hardfork in Nov, 2017. I expect Bitcoin to remain whole after these two forks. Bitcoin is not Ethereum. A minority chain is likely to survive on Ethereum, but not likely to survive on Bitcoin (due to mining difficulty and difficulty adjustment).
And in response to a comment within:
“This is all assuming the hard fork actually happens”
The 2mb hardfork will happen. A chain-split not necessarily. I’m leaning toward no chain-split at all. ”
Perhaps the issues are:
- Does this irrevocably alter the nature of Bitcoin (the one that will be traded at greater volume and value).
It seems so, yes.
2. Does this threaten decentralising services such as can only be facilitated in cryptocurrency? A thin end of the wedge.
Short term somewhat so. Medium term this is not so clear. There are many such “threats” in anycase. All large and well funded companies in this area with their ability to mix and match at scale private and public blockchains are a form of threat in the sense that the benefits of a decentralised offering, again at scale, may never be realised.
I do think you writing is very good, and some of it very funny. I’m not sure the issues are that of the need of government to control anarchic tendencies.
As you point out, there are social issues involved. We are thinking about the future and different possible forms of organising ourselves. Not the easiest thing to do at all. While a blockchain may provide the means for different ways of going about things for people, thinking about what those ways may be can leave people very uneasy, hence retreat into the known or seemingly controlled.
3. Still it certainly is a bad day for bitcoin if all it takes is two people to mount a coup. If so this seems like a fundamental failure, what Tezos and others are trying to address. Infancy?