Hard Fork in Bitcoin: a means of self debugging or freedom strategy
The first time I posted on crypto and decentralized blog, it was just before a Hard Fork.
Back then, in the middle of 2019, I had absolutely no idea what that meant. I only knew that there would be a shutdown of activities on the platform while the software was being upgraded.
In parallel, it was also the first time I participated in a community on Discord, an alternative medium used by communities to discuss and share ideas about the production and promotion of content on Steemit: the main interface on the Steem Blockchain.
Yes, that's how I started my rewarding career as a blogger.
A couple of years earlier, I had my first direct contact with Bitcoin, the defining year for the world's first cryptocurrency. Undoubtedly, the most important Hard Fork in this area and one that maintains, in my opinion, the original spirit and purpose for which it was created, expressed in the Bitcoin Whitepaper published by the anonymous Satoshi Nakamoto.
In August 2017, there was a bifurcation in the Bitcoin protocol that raised two visions about the future scaling and whose diatribe started with the increase in the size of the blocks.
A fact with technical and social edges in defense of the original orientation of Bitcoin.
The result was the division of the community in two. The developers of the Blockstream company kept the right to the Bitcoin Core (BTC) brand name, as well as the keys to the development repository, i.e., the centralized domain of the same.
On the other side (if one can call it that) opted to introduce a difficulty adjustment algorithm and increase the block size from 1 Mb to 8 Mb.
It should be clarified that the 1 Mb block limit was not part of the original code. This was implemented through a Soft Folk to avoid spam attacks while strengthening the security of the Blockchain.
In the interim, there was a dispute over Hash Power (the computational power of the miners) and who should keep the name, but that is a story that involves a separate chapter for a future installment.
In any case, the point I want to make is that a critical update in the Bitcoin protocol placed obstacles in the way of the massive adoption that the disruptive and liberating project was achieving by that time.
Fork of the Bitcoin Blockchain is seen by some as a defense and continuation of the original project.
While others consider that maintaining the block size is the right action to adjust to the market.
I don't know what you think, but obviously, at least for me, one must take sides as to which way is more convenient.
Yes, the term Hard Fork (HK) is obviously technical to mean critical changes to the code to improve the protocol that determines the direction of a Blockchain project (as it relates to cryptocurrencies).
But it also involves significant changes in the game's rules that need consensus, not only in the developers but also in all the players involved in the internal economy.
Well, if you have not realized it yet, the main contribution of Satoshi Nakamoto was not the Blockchain or the cryptographic means. It was the economic approach with which it operates internally.
In such a sense, the next time you read or hear about any HF in any Blockchain where you participate, pay close attention if you have compromised interests.
Perhaps, you must decide whether or not to support the changes.
Your participation is significant, however modest it may seem.
Perhaps, you may even have to jump ship to another one that represents your interests and suits the majority.
In a few days, there will be a Hard Fork in Bitcoin Cash to improve the efficiency of the protocol. If I am not mistaken, these have to do with an update in the native language and the information handling algorithm.
I know it will be successful and is on the right track.
You only have to worry when these HFs threaten the goal of the internal economy, whose purpose is to give you financial freedom.
I assure you that you will need to support the right team, and for them, you will need to exercise the defense strategy immersed in an HF focused on maintaining and empowering the purpose for which Bitcoin was created.
An original article by @Jnavedan
The thumbnail by Image by ijmaki on Pixabay
Cover image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images on Pixabay
I end by thanking all my colleagues in the community, who add value every day here. As well as all my sponsors for believing in the content I share with you.
Wouldn't it all be better without that fork if Blockstream wasn't asking for control of Bitcoin? I don't understand it. If the side of BTC followed the Bitcoin Cash proposals then it will be today worth probably half a million.