By the way, you said: "Altcoins were supposed to be demos that, when proven reliable, were to have their features integrated into Bitcoin."
I bet you can't find a source from the old documentation (pre-2017) on that. I'm pretty sure that's a narrative invented by altcoiners and just repeated enough to gaslight bitcoiners.
Ossification is a VERY desirable property of a monetary system.
Replies (4)
I was there, asswipe. everyone believed this
The shitcoin-promoted narrative is the exact opposite. Luke Dashjr promotes an insane narrative that any steps to further the utility of the Bitcoin blockchain will make it a conspiracy to distribute child porn. Of course, the board of his company is run by shitcoiners. Shitcoiners own all the equity in the company that employs him.
It's exactly the other way round. Ossification had been invented 2014-2017 to establish a permanent capacity limit.
Nobody would have accepted the obvious downsides in Bitcoin (non fungible "money) in 2010-2012 if there would not have been a prospect to fix them.
Maybe you are only half the OG you claim to be, when you don't know about altcoins to be a test bed for Bitcoin things.
Bitcoin had 95% dominance until the blocksize debate heated up.
Ossification is a sign of mistrust in the ruling forces behind honest consensus- that have always been social. It fixes nothing. Allowance to fork (even by bad actors) makes this a permission less system.
I have my mistrust as well. I believe Bitcoin has long been captured. So what does ossification serve then, when it furthers BlackRock and the state?
No process to stop the universe doing its thing no matter how hard you want to ossify - learning and integrating by going through anticipated shit times is the norm.
