[bisq-network/compensation] For March 2019 (#259)

[eyalron33]

@sqrrm I don't understand the phrase "splits in two fairly equal parts".

The case of splitting into *exactly* equal parts can be ignored as it is not realistic. For any other scenario, one part *must be bigger* than the other (voting-power wise), hence this is the "right DAO" and can be verified check using the system we created.

The bigger part then has no problem. 

The smaller part can choose to create a *new* DAO of its own with a new genesis block and/or new consensus rules. Then they have the job of convincing people to switch the Bisq version, to one that follows their new DAO.

I still think that using the word "fork" is confusing here. Is it more similar to blockchain forks, or to creating a new rival DAO, hoping users will switch to it?

Maybe I didn't understand what you mean though:-)

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/bisq-network/compensation/issues/259#issuecomment-479909183
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20190404/7d3383cb/attachment.html>