@lukedashjr what does this look like, practically speaking, for non-devs?
selling all forked coins seems like a good first line of defense
@lukedashjr depends on the stacks of the minority
but I see your point, thanks
@skells Yes, minority/majority is weighed by economic influence (not just stack size)
@lukedashjr good point
@lukedashjr hypothesis:
as long as a large enough segment of the population refused to accept forked coins, people would be getting burned by accepting them.
people would spend their forked coins as fast as possible (like counterfeit cash) and get wise about how they accepted coins in the future.
"bad money drives out good" but it's very easy to identify bad with a node, so you'd quickly train people to check their change
questions are:
1) what percentage of "intransigent minority" is required to effect this?
2) what are the incentives for inflationary cash and who are most tempted by them?
my sense is that most people would prefer to hold the real McCoy even if they tawked otherwise
@lukedashjr @skells same applies for ppl holding btc on exchanges?
@lukedashjr @skells Agreed
@skells To differentiate between "real" bitcoins and "forked coins", you need a full node of your own.
A risk of decentralised networks, is that they're vulnerable to takeover by centralised actors if too much of the economy trusts those centralised entities to verify their transactions.
A minority selling forked coins won't likely be enough to prevent that.