Reason to trust
How Our News is Made
Strict editorial policy that focuses on accuracy, relevance, and impartiality
Ad discliamer
Morbi pretium leo et nisl aliquam mollis. Quisque arcu lorem, ultricies quis pellentesque nec, ullamcorper eu odio.
Today Bitcoin.org published a blog post explaining the view on hard forks and their current policy. For the organization, Bitcoin.org, this topic is a very important one and raises a lot of issues.
The organization believes that contentious hard forks are not doing any good for Bitcoin and takes a stand against the current Bitcoin hard fork policy. In fact, the organization considers that the dangers of contentious hard forks are potentially so significant that Bitcoin.org decided to adopt a new policy.
They consider that these contentious hard forks will leave people who chose the losing side of the fork feeling disenfranchised. This continuous cycle will make bitcoins permanently lose their value. The organization alerts that in between are many possible outcomes, but none of them are good. Following this regard, the organization will not promote software or services that will leave the previous consensus because of an intentional and contentious hard fork attempt.
This new policy applies to full node software, such as Bitcoin Core, software forks of Bitcoin Core, and alternative full node implementations.
It also applies to wallets and services that have the ability to detect the contentious hard fork, and which release code or make announcements indicating that they will cease operating on the side of the previous consensus.
It does not apply to software that cannot detect the contentious hard fork and which continues doing whatever it would’ve done anyway. Bitcoin.org will only stop promoting particular wallets and services if they plan to move their users onto a contentious hard fork by default.
To make things clear, the organization is encouraging wallet authors and service providers to offer their opinions on hard fork proposals, and will not penalize anyone for contributing to a discussion.
So it seems they favor short-term capitalization (through stability) over long-term capitalization (through innovation). No surprise there.