Bitcoin Sidechains via Bip300: https://drivechain.info
QuoteSay x is "the probability that a severe bug is discovered in Bitcoin". Would you agree that a soft fork cannot increase x, whereas a hard fork can?
QuoteClearly you would agree that:[P1] If someone could have killed the Bitcoin cryptosytem, they would have done it by now (Gavin's SilkRoad point). [P2] No one has killed Bitcoin yet. So, [C1] Bitcoin is currently immune to murder.You probably also agree with:[P3] All that is 'done' must either be intentional-doing or unintentional-doing. [P4] " Bug means 'software does not do what it was intended to do' ". So, [C2] one who intentionally reduces the number of things a software 'can do' is unable of increasing the frequency of bugs ("unintended behavior").But it then follows that:[P5] Soft forks intentionally reduce the number of things a software 'can do'. + [C2] = [C3] Soft forks are unable to increase the frequency of bugs ("unintended behavior").And then:[P6] As "unintended behavior" is "unintended", we don't know what it is, and so "it" might include "death". + [C3] = [C4] Soft forks are unable to increase the likelihood of Bitcoin dying.Do you agree with [C4]? In the past, I think you have argued that organic user growth under 1MB blocks will kill Bitcoin, but I feel this premise contradicts (and is inferior to) [C1].