Consider the concept that a decentralized public currency should be platform independent and controlled by its owners, not its current hardware or software suppliers.
That case is beginning to be made as Bitcoin factions consider the increasingly popular "nuclear option" of forking Bitcoin to get their way over some incremental upgrade or another. Here's a particularly articulate case for BCC:
In a soundbyte their argument goes like this:
What was needed was multiple implementations of bitcoin, so that we could move away from the now bought-out Bitcoin Core team (BlockstreamCore). Bitcoin-ABC was born. Bitcoin-ABC allows for unlimited blocksizes, and has stripped out Segwit from the code. On Aug 1, Bitcoin-ABC miners and users will fork off onto their own chain, regardless of hashpower. You can keep track of it here: www.btcforkmonitor.info
So far, in a poll that can't be sybil attacked, actual Bitcoin users strongly favor bigger block bitcoin over govt/corp Segwit coin:
Valid rationale. But once you embrace that philosophy, you open Bitcoin to much more beneficial upgrade like this:
Don't doubt me. Fast Bitcoin (BTC-U) aka (BTC.BTS) will run on BitShares DPOS platform instead of the aging Bitcoin POW platform and its light speed performance is well established -- holding recurring records for most transactions processed per day over old Bitcoin and new Ethereum combined. Next year the BitShares platform will probably upgrade to run on the EOS.io blockchain operating system. See the obvious trend?
But how big of an upgrade should be allowed and still call it Bitcoin?
Can I do a "pitch fork" and chuck the whole thing all at once?
What if I do that same upgrade in 100 baby steps? Then can I call it Bitcoin?
What if I get one of the existing miners to do it in 1000 baby steps?
What if I get the girlfriend of an ex-developer's uncle to do it?
Who exactly has the right to upgrade Bitcoin?
We quickly come to the realization that anyone has the right to upgrade a decentralized blockchain... if they can get a consensus behind them.
In the end, its a consensus of the people who buy and use your product isn't it? Bitcoin owners, not miners or developers or industry analysts.
Platform Independence is hardly a new idea. We have it at the hardware and software levels.
BitShares has already jumped platforms twice with a quantum leap in performance each time. It will probably be jumping to EOS.io next year -- without skipping a beat or changing its essential character or ownership of its tokens.
Will Bitcoin still be running the same hardware and software 100 years from now? If not, why can't we completely change its software AND hardware on August 1st?
The genie is already out of the bottle.
Arguments about tiny incremental changes have already opened to door.
It's going to happen sooner or later.
Maybe we should call our proposed Fast Bitcoin (BTC-U) aka (BTC.BTS)
Nah. Bitcoin United. We want there to always be just one Bitcoin. The best it can be.
To be continued in: Doc Brown's Multiple Bitcoins Theory
Image credits: see embedded links
About the Author -- Stan Larimer