I only see a little of the chatter about the Bitcoin price, but I haven't seen anyone mentioning the uncertainty around the fallout of Core v30 and a potential fork as a factor. Macro forces influence the big players more than the humble stackers, but this is something impacting Bitcoiners, and I wonder how many are unsure.
A fork is spoken about as either a threatening event to be avoided at all costs, or a solution to a problem, from either side. Not many people explain what actually happens if it comes, and it seems like a tension between choosing what you believe is right and betting on what you think the majority will choose as the main Bitcoin.
If I understand the history right, in other times the people pushing a change forked off, but here, the maintainers of Bitcoin Core itself have initiated the contentious change. So if there's a fork, it's harder to say which side would be splintering off - the main implementation changing Bitcoin's uses, or the alternatives keeping it as money. Running Knots, not upgrading Core, changing settings, or choosing BIP110 are ways people are showing their stance, but we don't know if it means helping decide the right path forward for Bitcoin or getting kicked off into some minority spinoff that tries to keep Satoshi's Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash but lacks the strength of the main network.
To make it even more complicated, there's debate over what even makes the difference - nodes, miners, or both, and whether the balance of power has gone off track.
How do we defend this solution we know is so powerful in solving the world's problems, without damaging its value or splitting it into things it shouldn't be? Is a fork inevitable? What happens if it comes?
#fork #BTC #BIP110 #asknostr
