[alexasmyths]

This is an interesting paradox because the whole point of the system was that it was decentralized, and once set in motion the rules could not be changed.

Or so they can?

And who decides?

Because these forks can have considerably favourable or negative outcomes for specific stakeholders, it's nary impossible to make the decision 'fairly' and this rather undermines the whole thing, no? And yes, I do understand that 'value' may be the same after such 'forks' but different post-fork mechanisms will imply different outcomes, surely.

Would it be possible for nefarious actors to wedge themselves into this process? ... Because we were all looking for the 'technical fault' in the maths/encryption, we possibly missed this aspect of risk?

[JauntyHatAngle]

>and once set in motion the rules could not be changed.

This was not the case, nor has it ever been. There have been many consensus changes in the past, and bitcoin has had forks that were reverted by the bitcoin community previously. (See the bitcoin 0.8 fork).

There have been multiple revisions of bitcoin which would have changed the rules. They haven't yet resulted in a hard fork permanently (except for bitcoin cash) because people have updated before the new consensus rules were activated.

[drdrey]

It is decentralized, therefore the rules can change. The core devs can try to push changes, but miners and users can choose whether they upgrade (e.g. adopt the new rules) or not. If people disagree about the rules, then you have an actual fork with diverging histories (e.g. Bitcoin Cash vs Bitcoin)

[colordrops]

Saying the rules can be changed is like saying that your eyes changed color if you have a child with different color eyes. A fork is not the same chain as the original.

[alexasmyths]

All of the comments above lead me to understand that basically anything can happen with BTC and this kind of undermines it's value as a 'hard currency'.

The whole point of decentralization was that nobody could control it, and devaluation was based on some algorithm, limited by tech.

If these rules can change, then the intrinsic value of BTC is truly up in the air.

What business would invest in using BTC as a currency knowing such things can arbitrarily happen?

[prewett]

Businesses don't invest in currency, they invest with it. Businesses don't use cash for investments, either. Investing is buying something that will generate returns, and cash cannot generate any return, kind of by definition. Fiat currencies have no intrinsic value, either, but everyone still uses them. But since one has to keep some cash on hand, a stable currency is preferable.

The only reason people are investing in BTC is that the price is going up because demand is going up faster than supply is increasing. It's not really any different than if Confederate paper money became the hot thing, and stores started accepting it for payment, despite it not being legally currency. Since they only discover new sources of Confederate money every so often, if everyone wants to buy the stuff, the price is going to go up. If this keeps on happening year after year, people are going to start thinking it always goes up and buy it expecting it to go up.

[alexasmyths]

Yes, I get what you are saying but BTC - as a currency - will require a lot of investment 'in' BTC for transactional purposes, accounting etc..

BTC is already waning as a currency - fewer vendors using it.

As a 'store of value' it's really too volatile - there are just too many other, better options.

So what's left?

[cesarb]

> Investing is buying something that will generate returns, and cash cannot generate any return, kind of by definition.

During the hyperinflation of the 90s, if I bought US dollars and sold them a month later, I could have a return in the double digits. That looks like a good investment.