the hard fork from BSV pinned to CTOR but also is it wrong to pin it to just that?
CTOR was an excuse for nchain to wrestle control of BCH really. But tbf Aumary was a bit of a dictator and liked to ram things in and everyone just kinda went along with it
Supposedly a transaction ordering system allows for better scaling, because you know there are rules about what transactions have and haven't been validated yet in the order of the block. I don't think its benefit has been demonstrated in practice, I don't know of any examples of it being demonstrated theoretically/in tests. It was before the CHIP process so it was easier to push something like that through when you're the dev team behind the majority node implementation =P I definitely think it's wrong to just pin the BSV split on CTOR, it seemed to me more like they would latch on to anything to split over. It was definitely contrary to the BSV purist Bitcoin-was-perfect-the-day-it-was-released luddite-y narrative. While a silly perspective IMO, it at least prevents busywork changes to the protocol, which some people think CTOR was. With the CHIP process we have now it's possible it would be laughed out of the room. Definitely not good to be changing stuff around like that willy nilly. It was just still really obvious that, between the two sides, BSV was even more bonkers crazy and even less reasonable.
Question well answered folks thanks (also cheaplightning)
Обсуждают сегодня