The idea that hard forks are dangerous or irresponsible is a belief that is not well supported. However it's a rather good piece of Bitcoin Core propaganda to scare people away from doing what's necessary.
The idea that hard forks are dangerous or irresponsible is a belief that is not well supported. However it's a rather good piece of Bitcoin Core propaganda to scare people away from doing what's necessary.
bip99 - https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0099.mediawi...
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3t21dh/dangerous...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3griiv/on_consensu...
> scare people away from doing what's necessary
Most block size hard-forks can be deployed as a soft-fork. "It's necessary" is highly contentious and you have failed to cite any of the arguments you disagree with- you're wasting everyone's time.
An accidental hard-fork is a completely different animal from an intentional contentious hard-fork where half of the network goes one way and the other half the other way for the foreseeable future.
Could a cryptocurrency not be controlled by those who can afford to spend the most in CPU power (like governments)?
Could consensus occur by human power?