0 sats \ 5 replies \ @jk_14 OP 23 Oct 2023 \ parent \ on: "If all the people around tells you that you’re drunk - maybe you're just drunk" bitcoin
reorg[s] isn't aren't the end of the world.
... but the end of Store-of-Value for sure.
write
preview
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @CruncherDefi 23 Oct 2023
but the end of Store-of-Value for sure.
Says who?
Evidence points to this statement being false. Reorgs happened many time and bitcoin is fine. That's why we wait for 6 confirmations until we consider tx finalized.
reply
120 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 OP 23 Oct 2023
And that's why I'm consistently writing about: the network security regression, and not reorgs. Swap it, then:
Significant and four years long network security regression isn't the end of the world.
Yes, it is.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SpaceHodler 23 Oct 2023
It's a bit over my head, but if reorgs become more profitable, would increasing the (AFAIU unofficial) number of confirmations solve the issue (effectively making txs take longer, but growing at a logarithmic rate)?
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @om 23 Oct 2023
Then fork it like BCH did and let the market decide.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 OP 23 Oct 2023
there is no need to because if the Store-of-Value will collapse - and in the absence of a free market between active and passive participants, it's "not if, but when" - there will be patch available ASAP (and such guys like you will be the most insisting on releasing it... ;)
reply