Bitcoin fork which changed incentive design is not bitcoin.

I’d like to summarize the story that “bitcoin” and “four-leaf clover” are both “situations”.

If I get a four leaf clover, I am happy.

It is because it is unusual and because it has a “situation brand” called “four leaf clover”.

“Brand of the situation” refers to the situation that “the four-leaf clover is rare, and it is said to be lucky.”

But what if you give a four-leaf clover of genetic manipulation and other similar plants as a “four-leaf clover”? I hope not to know that, but I am not happy if I know it.

Why?

It is not glad because it is not suitable for calling it a four leaf clover.

In other words, the four-leaf clover is a situation that is happening because someone began to say, “Four-leaf clover is rare and lucky”.

The clover which is made artificially into four leaves is out of the situation of “four leaf clover”.

The important thing here is roots which is said to be lucky.
It is not lucky unconditionally if it is a four leaf. It is important that the situation began calling “four leaves clover” for “four leaves that happen to be found in the three leaf clover”. It is impossible to ignore that.

For example, suppose someone spreads the propaganda that “the four-leaf clover was originally a symbol of bad luck”.

If it spreads, the evaluation of the four-leaf clover may disappear.
There is the possibility that ‘five-leaf artificial clover’ spreads instead.
Rather, the four-leaf clover itself may be someone’s business.

What is important is whether “the situation that has been defined as such” continues.

Are there still many people saying that “four-leaf clover is lucky?”

What about bitcoin?

In the case of bitcoin, consistent conclusions do not come out because the definition of “four leaf” differs from person to person.

Since definition is not clear, I think that propaganda such as “bitcoin cash is real bitcoin” will occur naturally.

So where is the definition “bitcoin is four-leaf”?

bitcoin fixes serious bugs and has not changed rules for a long time since it started working.
In particular, changes in incentive design, such as mining and fees, will not be expected in the future.

What does it mean to change parts related to incentives?

In terms of the four leaf clover, for example, “Changing the appearance rate of four-leaf” and “Say something bad about four-leaf” are the changes to the incentive design.
On the other hand, ASIC is like “soil that grows a lot of clover”.That’s not the case.
SegWit is also in place to prepare an environment where clover is easy to grow up.That’s not the case.Incentive design has not changed.
LightningNetwork naturally does not mention the incentive design.

Even if some people make profits, it is not a change of rules, since it is a contrivance after obeying the rule of “ Game of get the four-leaf clover” .

In other words, I think that changing fundamental “incentive design(on 1st layer)” may fall into the four-leaf clover of genetic manipulation, or the propaganda of “four leaves are evil”.

“Bitcoin fork which changed incentive design is not bitcoin.”

I think that this proposition is room for discussion.

Thanks