Attacking a minority hashrate chain stands against everything Bitcoin represents. Bitcoin is voluntary money. People use it because they choose to, not because they are coerced.

Gavin Andresen, Peter Rizun and Jihan Wu have all expressed the opinion that a majority hashrate chain should attack the minority (by way of selfish mining and empty block DoS).

This is a disgrace and stands against everything Bitcoin represents. Bitcoin is voluntary money. People use it because they choose to, not because they are coerced.

They are basically saying that if some of us want to use a currency specified by the current Bitcoin Core protocol, it is ok to launch an attack to coax us into using their money instead. Well, no, it’s not ok, it is shameful and morally bankrupt. Even if they succeed, what they end up with is fiat money and not Bitcoin.

True genetic diversity can be obtained only with multiple protocols coexisting side by side, competing and evolving into the strongest possible version of Bitcoin.

This transcends the particular debate over the merits of BU vs. Core.

For the past 1.5 years I’ve written at some length about why allowing a split to happen is the best outcome in case of irreconcilable disagreements. I implore anyone who holds a similar view to read my blog posts on the matter and reconsider their position.

How I learned to stop worrying and love the fork

I disapprove of Bitcoin splitting, but I’ll defend to the death its right to do it

And God said, “Let there be a split!” and there was a split.

submitted by /u/MeniRosenfeld
[link] [comments]
Bitcoin