A good question is: What fork will bitBTC reference after the split?
I'd prefer UASF though. But it doesn't matter that much, since bitBTC is just a minor side product in our company... we just need to avoid negative news, eventually affecting all smartcoins, because we did not react in time
I prefer the big-block approach as originally intended by Satoshi; off-chain solutions are a neat idea on top of the Bitcoin blockchain, but strangling the core scaling mechanism (increasing block size) to push everyone onto blockstream's off-chain scaling solution is a terrible idea.
UASF by definition is a sybill attack, they're even proposing changing POW mechanisms which is really a scorched earth policy for BTC!
On the upside, we may experience the 'flippening' where BTC loses its #1 place, if this happens who knows what will happen in the crypto markets?! Exciting times!
Relevant BSIP in case of bitBTC global settlement:
A good question is: What fork will bitBTC reference after the split?
Preferably, we shouldn't reference the 'UASF' fork.
I'd prefer UASF though. But it doesn't matter that much, since bitBTC is just a minor side product in our company... we just need to avoid negative news, eventually affecting all smartcoins, because we did not react in time
I prefer the big-block approach as originally intended by Satoshi; off-chain solutions are a neat idea on top of the Bitcoin blockchain, but strangling the core scaling mechanism (increasing block size) to push everyone onto blockstream's off-chain scaling solution is a terrible idea.
UASF by definition is a sybill attack, they're even proposing changing POW mechanisms which is really a scorched earth policy for BTC!
On the upside, we may experience the 'flippening' where BTC loses its #1 place, if this happens who knows what will happen in the crypto markets?! Exciting times!