I guess as a pleb I’m trying to understand that if bitcoin could have just been destroyed this whole time by a core update than it’s not anti-fragile.
It doesn’t make sense to me how code can just make an update and turn it to a shitcoin without us just forking.
For an open source decentralized protocol it does seem like control over the "official" codebase is very centralized.
A contentious hard fork would be very damaging to the mission I think Bitcoin is for, which is to destroy fiat.
I think Bitcoin is in a good place to do that with its current functionality. There's no reason to push for significant changes to the protocol until it's more clear that it's needed for Bitcoin to continue to grow, and there should be broad agreement on those changes.
I need people way smarter than I to measure in on this.
nostr:npub12rv5lskctqxxs2c8rf2zlzc7xx3qpvzs3w4etgemauy9thegr43sf485vg for one. We need a podcast with a bunch of people in the room.
Most node runners update when a core update comes out without thinking about it much. If we all do that after this PR is merged, no fork.
This is different in history because during the blocksize wars Core told BSV to go away. BSV forked the software and made their own version creating the chain fork with their own chain. Core has been the source of truth for every fork in the past.
Now we are looking at a potential fork where the latest version of Core will no longer be the source of truth.
