#bitcoinplansecashhardfork
Some things in crypto are supposed to be untouchable, and Satoshi's coins were one of them.
Now there's a plan to reassign half a million of those dormant BTC to fund a new fork. Called "eCash." Called "incentive." I call it a precedent that wasn't requested.
Because here's the thing: if those coins can be moved because a group of people decided it's justified, what's actually stopping the next group from deciding the same about yours?
Bitcoin's whole pitch was that no one gets to do that. Not governments. Not developers. Not "early investors." The moment we make an exception for Satoshi, we've admitted the rule was never really the rule.
I'm not against forks. I'm against the idea that immutability is negotiable when it's convenient.
Am I overreacting, or does this feel like a line that shouldn't be crossed?
#Binance $BTC
Some things in crypto are supposed to be untouchable, and Satoshi's coins were one of them.
Now there's a plan to reassign half a million of those dormant BTC to fund a new fork. Called "eCash." Called "incentive." I call it a precedent that wasn't requested.
Because here's the thing: if those coins can be moved because a group of people decided it's justified, what's actually stopping the next group from deciding the same about yours?
Bitcoin's whole pitch was that no one gets to do that. Not governments. Not developers. Not "early investors." The moment we make an exception for Satoshi, we've admitted the rule was never really the rule.
I'm not against forks. I'm against the idea that immutability is negotiable when it's convenient.
Am I overreacting, or does this feel like a line that shouldn't be crossed?
#Binance $BTC