Comment: Flaws and infrastructure

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: http://www.marketwatch.com/st (see in situ)

Flaws and infrastructure

I think you (and a lot of advocates) are understating how difficult it is for bitcoin to evolve. Do you know what a "hard fork" is for bitcoin? Some kinds of changes would require a hard fork, effectively creating two competing alt coins, the old bitcoin and the new, with the hope that the new will squeeze out the old. Getting everyone to go along with a hard fork would be hard too. But these kinds of things are much, much easier for a new alt coin designing from the ground up based on lessons learned from bitcoin.

First link that came up, but I think it hits some of the main ideas:
http://thegenesisblock.com/go-fork-yourself-life-after-a-bit...

Yahoo made mistakes, all first movers make mistakes, but how many are hampered in their ability to evolve the way bitcoin is?

Second, maybe we're not on the same page about infrastructure.but the real issue is barrier to entry. That's usually connected to infrastructure, AFAIK, in sentences like "Examples of industries with barriers to entry are the telecommunications and energy industries, because of the high cost of infrastructure necessary to begin operations." But we can focus on the concept of barrier to entry, which is what the real point is. Vorhees tried to say that infrastructure in some sense was a barrier, and you did too, both referring to the network.

But the network is a p2p network, and that's not much of a technical barrier. If you want to see how little barrier that is, Litecoin is a ready example -- one guy did that in his spare time, while holding down a full time job. So other than market share, I don't know what the barrier to entry argument is supposed to be.