> , with regard to Bitcoin miners have essentially become a centralized authority, and their decisions on block-size have made Bitcoin less liquid, and less useful as a currency while making transactions more profitable to them.
>Another example would be exchanges
Interestingly enough, with regards to bitcoin, there was a huge powerplay that happened a couple years ago. And this debate proved who had the real power.
A couple years about, almost every major exchange, bitcoin company, merchant payment processor, and bitcoin miner, wanted increase the bitcoin blocksize, in order to reduce transactions fees to users and help adoption.
(Even though this directly hurt the miners, the miners still wanted it, because they supported adoption. Crazy, I know)
But, this change didn't pass, because the 4 or 5 people who controlled the bitcoin core github repository, and reference client disagreed with the changes, it prevented it from happening.
And this was in spite of the fact that almost every single major player in the space wanted this change.
So crazily enough, the central authorities of the bitcoin protocol, are the couple people who hold the keys to a github repository.
> But, this change didn't pass, because the 4 or 5 people who controlled the bitcoin core github repository, and reference client disagreed with the changes, it prevented it from happening.
This is blatant re-writing of history.
A fork was written, Bitcoin Cash, but most people/miners/companies didn't want to use it. It was widely known and the differences/advantages/disadvantages were discussed ad nauseum for months/years.
A Github repo can't force people to run it's code instead of another.
> And this was in spite of the fact that almost every single major player in the space wanted this change.
So why did they keep running Bitcoin Core instead of the fork?
> So why did they keep running Bitcoin Core instead of the fork?
Because it turns out that controlling a github repo is a very powerful power.
> A fork was written, Bitcoin Cash
This has nothing to do with Bitcoin Cash. This has to do with 2XSegwit. An initiative that was supported by every single major miner, all of the exchanges (coinbase, gemini, kraken, ect), as well as the major merchant payment processors (IE, bitpay, and all the others).
There are statements after statements made by all of these players, where they stated support for it. Unfortunately, it seems like the people who control the bitcoin protocol, the developers, had too much power, though.
Did you disagree that every major miner, and Bitcoin business like coinbase and BitPay, put out messages in support of the 2X Segwit agreement?
>Another example would be exchanges
Interestingly enough, with regards to bitcoin, there was a huge powerplay that happened a couple years ago. And this debate proved who had the real power.
A couple years about, almost every major exchange, bitcoin company, merchant payment processor, and bitcoin miner, wanted increase the bitcoin blocksize, in order to reduce transactions fees to users and help adoption.
(Even though this directly hurt the miners, the miners still wanted it, because they supported adoption. Crazy, I know)
But, this change didn't pass, because the 4 or 5 people who controlled the bitcoin core github repository, and reference client disagreed with the changes, it prevented it from happening.
And this was in spite of the fact that almost every single major player in the space wanted this change.
So crazily enough, the central authorities of the bitcoin protocol, are the couple people who hold the keys to a github repository.