True. And what of the proof of work mining itself? A 51% attack becomes much more feasible when you are using Qbits to solve the puzzle instead of regular NAND gate transistors. Don't forget about the OGs that don't have segwit addresses and haven't moved their coins in years. They'll be the first targets.
I hope you're right. But I think it's best to err to caution. Besides, why waste a hard fork if not to improve bitcoin against future threats.? The optics alone would be enough to attract apathetic users stuck on core chain. I say offer them something instead of just a moral dilemma.
Login to reply
Replies (1)
The idea of this fork is to normalise using a POW change in emergency scenarios (such as this one). It’s why we’re adopting the name Bitcoin-BLAKE2b, because this might not be the last time we might have to change the hashing algo. The goal is to bootstrap a more robust network, better prepared for the uncertain future and possible attacks. In the end it’s still Bitcoin, it’s just the pow change re mining cartel attack on the sovereignty of the network.