Here's why hard forks are a big problem for the credibility of the supply...
Imagine there was a group of people who could hard fork gold. Let's call them the Gold Cartel.
Suppose the Gold Cartel decided to hard fork gold to change its essential characteristics (what they would euphemistically call a "protocol upgrade"), but not the gold supply.
Then suppose the Gold Cartel mandated a gold hard fork that would change gold from a solid to a liquid and from the color yellow to brown. But they decided that, this time, they would leave the gold supply unchanged.
They claimed they were making these changes to gold to upgrade its fungability and that everyone must go along with them and their new and improved version of gold.
Then suppose the Gold Cartel told everyone the gold hard fork would occur in 2 weeks and that everyone in the world must come to one of the Gold Cartel's offices to exchange the old yellow, solid gold for the new brown, liquid gold.
After the Gold Cartel's hard fork, the old yellow, solid gold would not longer be valid. It would no longer be gold and thus useless to anyone who didn't exchange it for their newly mandated liquid brown gold.
In such a situation, would gold be a neutral, apolitical, decentralized asset?
Would its supply have any credibility?
Or would it be a shitcoin?
NickGiambruno / Nick Giambruno
npub1wgj…e082
2023-06-10 17:20:42
in reply to nevent1q…c7vv
Author Public Key
npub1wgjh30uxvvepumxhl3qlfzmt4chueprxmcvrxyw0wjtv9m4w8zwq3se082Published at
2023-06-10 17:20:42Event JSON
{
"id": "0f92ae440772bf15cde1a7d41e664072cfa025aea7395189991bb047b20367f4",
"pubkey": "722578bf8663321e6cd7fc41f48b6bae2fcc8466de183311cf7496c2eeae389c",
"created_at": 1686410442,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ede042831147f05be184679b987fdbeea042753711432d87f9618992cd0529cf",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"691cfe0ed6af9a06731d72f241b10807b5474fa738017c62281d9c18c2f7e35c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"722578bf8663321e6cd7fc41f48b6bae2fcc8466de183311cf7496c2eeae389c"
],
[
"p",
"875685e12bdeaaa7a207d8d25c3fd432a8af307b80f8a5226777b50b0aa2f846"
]
],
"content": "Here's why hard forks are a big problem for the credibility of the supply... \n\nImagine there was a group of people who could hard fork gold. Let's call them the Gold Cartel. \n\nSuppose the Gold Cartel decided to hard fork gold to change its essential characteristics (what they would euphemistically call a \"protocol upgrade\"), but not the gold supply. \n\nThen suppose the Gold Cartel mandated a gold hard fork that would change gold from a solid to a liquid and from the color yellow to brown. But they decided that, this time, they would leave the gold supply unchanged.\n\nThey claimed they were making these changes to gold to upgrade its fungability and that everyone must go along with them and their new and improved version of gold.\n\nThen suppose the Gold Cartel told everyone the gold hard fork would occur in 2 weeks and that everyone in the world must come to one of the Gold Cartel's offices to exchange the old yellow, solid gold for the new brown, liquid gold.\n\nAfter the Gold Cartel's hard fork, the old yellow, solid gold would not longer be valid. It would no longer be gold and thus useless to anyone who didn't exchange it for their newly mandated liquid brown gold.\n\nIn such a situation, would gold be a neutral, apolitical, decentralized asset?\n\nWould its supply have any credibility?\n\nOr would it be a shitcoin?",
"sig": "c7bc9f05c282d94eb6b31d02ba380da3c4d41efcfece2dc71956b760f9070de91257e0cdc63fe237860ecf856728f630f27da04c5583ec051b6dcc543192e5d0"
}