And my argument is that the users would just use exchanges to transfer Bitcoin from one person to another.(another centralization pressure.)
And since the everyday user is not important or economically dense enough to matter, this would go through without a problem.
Remember, my argument is that the mining companies and the exchanges would work together in tandem because they benefit each other in this arrangement. Since the suit coiners don't care about sovereignty they'll just use the exchanges to do their financial shenanigans and all of the real Bitcoiners(who don't actually have any power) would be left out in the cold just like the BIP110 people.
Replies (2)
They can't force everyone to run the code. Just like Segwit or Taproot. As I mentioned before, anyone can still make legacy transactions and they are valid even though effectively all the miners are running Taproot.
Also the amount of Bitcoin an entity has doesn't scale linearly with how much control they have over the network.
I am saying they can (if they have the current paradigm of majority hashpower) IGNORE all of the users who don't run the new version. Nodes who aren't corporate Miners and Exchanges don't matter. That's what we learned on Saturday. There is not enough decentralized hash power to even come close to competing with those five companies.
And again, if you don't get on board with the Cartel, you'd have to switch to Ocean (unlikely with the current events) or another protocol that uses DATUM (who?). And I don't think any of these hashing warehouses are even close to ready to do something like that.
