|
> , with regard to Bitcoin miners have essentially become a centralized authority, and their decisions on block-size have made Bitcoin less liquid, and less useful as a currency while making transactions more profitable to them. >Another example would be exchanges Interestingly enough, with regards to bitcoin, there was a huge powerplay that happened a couple years ago. And this debate proved who had the real power. A couple years about, almost every major exchange, bitcoin company, merchant payment processor, and bitcoin miner, wanted increase the bitcoin blocksize, in order to reduce transactions fees to users and help adoption. (Even though this directly hurt the miners, the miners still wanted it, because they supported adoption. Crazy, I know) But, this change didn't pass, because the 4 or 5 people who controlled the bitcoin core github repository, and reference client disagreed with the changes, it prevented it from happening. And this was in spite of the fact that almost every single major player in the space wanted this change. So crazily enough, the central authorities of the bitcoin protocol, are the couple people who hold the keys to a github repository. |
This is blatant re-writing of history.
A fork was written, Bitcoin Cash, but most people/miners/companies didn't want to use it. It was widely known and the differences/advantages/disadvantages were discussed ad nauseum for months/years.
A Github repo can't force people to run it's code instead of another.
> And this was in spite of the fact that almost every single major player in the space wanted this change.
So why did they keep running Bitcoin Core instead of the fork?