Here's a quote from the conclusion of the whitepaper in which Nakamoto laid out Bitcoin:<p>They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of
valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on
them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.<p>This is Bitcoin's consensus mechanism and it's called Nakamoto consensus.<p>In turn, this means that 'Bitcoin' is whatever chain has the most cumulative work done to secure it.<p>Nothing is 'contentious' about this. It either has the most cumulative PoW, or it doesn't.<p>If the minority chain has some value it might survive. If it does, that's fine. You'll have coins on both chains and you can choose to care or not.
Its like watching a religion unfold in accelerated time. Heretics separating themselves into sects with different practices and beliefs from the orthodox groups.<p>Is Bitcoin turning into a social experiment instead of an economical one? :)
I have so many questions here:<p>a. I was under the impression it was Satoshi who had put in the 1 MB size limit. This is the first attempt to increase the size. But then the article says:<p>"Until now, Bitcoin has been operating by simply increasing the block size whenever bitcoin needs to scale. This allows more transactions to process in a single block."<p>These size increases were under which BIPs?<p>b. "....to firing current bitcoin developers and taking over bitcoin development"<p>My understanding is the decentralized nature of bitcoin and the consensus mechanism meant no one can actually be fired. The worst case scenario is that I am stopped from accessing the bitcoin-core code repo but I can still rally people to take up my changes and vote (consensus) on it.<p>d. "Inspite of this, Segwit2x people kept pushing the hard fork on the community just to fulfill their agreement as they have the mining power support."<p>Wasn't that the whole point of bitcoin? Miners are needed to do most of the heavy lifting which means they have a say in what direction bitcoin goes.<p>Additionally, what is the mechanism to show the non-mining support for any of the changes?<p>c. Any links which show there is support for the current chain?
In light of the hard fork in Bitcoin world.
This graphic <a href="https://imgur.com/y4D0XEC" rel="nofollow">https://imgur.com/y4D0XEC</a> should get you up to speed with all you need to know about the state of Bitcoin forks.
I don't think any of these bitcoin forks are particularly helpful to the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem.<p>Additionally, the cult of bitcoin and the various sub-cults make it hard to actually be interested in bitcoin as a technology without being forced to invest ideologically by thousands of fanboys claiming all other sub-cults to be evil.<p>Personally, I've moved my assets into other cryptocoins and I hope I can weather the storm of bitcoin's inevitable and eventual collapse there. Hopefully.
>Several polls were done and it was made clear that segwit2x had no support from the community.<p>That has to be the most laughable part of the article. "Hey guys, I posted this poll on a pro-core forum and what do you know, not a single person supported S2X...". It's like the polls posted in /r/btc about Bitcoin Cash - everyone in the bitcoin world lives in their own bubble and use those around them to validate their opinions.