|
|
|
|
|
by marcus_holmes
2986 days ago
|
|
OK, I don't understand this. Forking BTC was one thing, because speculators and miners and all. There was bound to be some interest in a second version of BTC because everyone got free money, right? But forking filecoin? I don't understand how this works. Please explain. Who would be into this, why would they mine a second filecoin? How does the community survive half a dozen forks (and having to specify which fork your precious.jpg is on?) |
|
1. Deep philosophical differences (e.g. Bitcoin Cash) or incompatible technical changes.
2. Removing rent-seeking (e.g., if a network/token is successful, but has some sort of greedy/rent-seeking aspect to it, I expect the community will just fork it away to remove that aspect).
3. Governance issues (e.g. if a token is setup such that its run by folks who have either actual or perceived control and those folks start failing to make good technical or other decisions, a competing faction might decide it's easier to fork than to wage war for either actual control or perceived control).
4. Greed (e.g. Bitcoin Platinum; these will generally fail in my view)
>> How does the community survive half a dozen forks (and having to specify which fork your precious.jpg is on?)
How does Linux survive its numerous forks? As to specifying which fork your file is on, why can't there be middleware that makes it easy to support multiple storage networks, just like today?