http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-core-ethereum-hard-fork-unsettling-precedent/
why i am not surprised by peter todd's reaction.
now he's extra paranoid about HF...
personally i think they are viewing this in the wrong light. I find it encouraging to know that a crypto necessarily behaves EXACTLY as the marjoy want it to, and the fact that this very controversial and extreme version of a HF ( not one that simply changes protocol rules and leaves balances alone, but actually edits the blockchain! ) was not only smoothly deployed but also left the ETH markets unaffected, is proof of concept IMO.
why i am not surprised by peter todd's reaction.
now he's extra paranoid about HF...
personally i think they are viewing this in the wrong light. I find it encouraging to know that a crypto necessarily behaves EXACTLY as the marjoy want it to, and the fact that this very controversial and extreme version of a HF ( not one that simply changes protocol rules and leaves balances alone, but actually edits the blockchain! ) was not only smoothly deployed but also left the ETH markets unaffected, is proof of concept IMO.
Yeah, not a shocker.
The argument seems to be that if we HF to improve throughput... we go straight to transaction rollbacks and changing the emission schedule. Slippery slope argument writ large.
Their real fear is that people will find out that when it comes to Bitcoin's decision process... hashrate means more than the personalities in an IRC clique.