Hacker News Reader

Comment by vmception | Hacker News Reader

They just grow faster and get patched quickly. Bitcoin has had brief and temporary service failures a variety of times early on. A brief issue during a chain's first year of operation really isn't as damning as you think it is.

There is a lot of immediate commerce right now which is awkward to disrupt, but just patch and move on.

View on HN

exactly what i need from the foundation of a financial system, to grow quickly and patch bugs on the fly! what could possibly go wrong.

remember to ask: are you making a separate higher standard than the one you use with the system you actually respect?

useful to mention because I notice people often aren't aware of how the system they respect works and succumbs worse to the same criticisms

nope, same standard as i have for bitcoin. consensus algorithm barely changed in 12 years. the only known consensus-breaking bug that caused a chain rollback was found long before bitcoin had any significant financial relevance in the world. developers have extreme propensity for slow, gradual, cautious changes, especially when it comes to consensus algorithm, realizing that "moving fast and breaking things" is not a great basis for stable system and a horrible precedent for future development/governance.

Well the person above was originally talking about Solana

And I thought I was responding to a no-coiner, but it seems you are conflating everything not-bitcoin together

Blocks stopped briefly and it was inconvenient because there is a bit of commerce since the adoption curve is way faster, we can just say “thank you bitcoin for paving the way” and move on. That circumstance is just not different enough.

Things have to be done quite well on this area, little error margin

Reply on news.ycombinator.com