I have made my personal decision (as a user) to stick with Bitcoin Core and the proposed capacity road-map. In my opinion this debate has been manipulated to the extent that the problem is not the size of a block anymore but a political war.
Since the hard fork seems to be inevitable at this point, how will the continuity of Bitcoin be ensured ? It seems obvious that the majority of hash-rate is in favor of the 2Mb block increase, but it is not clear to me that the majority of hash-rate is in favor of a hard-fork instead of a soft-fork.
So there are many post-fork scenarios that need to be taken into account : The majority of miners join it’s hashing power in a single chain, be it Bitcoin or Classic. So the coin that is abandoned by miners will have serious trouble securing the chain and adapting to the new difficulty, also, considering the current hashrate provided by massive ASIC production, the abandoned chain will no longer be secure, since 51% attacks would be more than likely. In this scenario one coins wins over the other.
Another possible scenario is that the hashrate is divided among both coins, which would likely be the worst outcome since both coins would loose from a security point of view, and also economically dilluted.
It seems obvious that the only win-win scenario would be to not to fork Bitcoin at all (from a codebase point of view), and find an agreement that satisfies both sides. I have been following the debate closely and there are some extreme positions (on both sides) so this is unlikely to happen. Having said that some planning needs to be done if the current Bitcoin hashate is gone.
I would like to know the community […]
