Though hard forks have achieved considerable contenders in the digital currency space, as Bitcoin Cash and Litecoin, yet they have brought about a vast measure of drama, which we are presently observing as Bitcoin Cash approaches its own particular offbeat and exceptionally controversial fork.
The latest study published in Springer’s Environmental Systems and Decisions journal “Cryptocurrency: governance for what was meant to be ungovernable” seems to confirm this, interpreting over 800 unique forks of varied coins based on Bitcoin. Initiating the research effort, the lead author Benjamin Trump discovered that a few of these software changes have ruined the stability of cryptocurrencies.
The study said, “At a minimum, hard fork growth presents a potential roadblock to the mainstream adoption of select cryptocurrencies and, potentially, a threat to the cryptocurrency’s ability to maintain a stable and predictable operating platform that is essential to its use as a guarantor for daily financial transactions.”
Even though the legacy that Bitcoin carried with it has brought forth successful altcoins, the fork-happy nature of digital currencies themselves could dismantle the entire financial ecosystems because of the contention that they produce. However, not all of them were hard forks.
The authors of the study believe that some hard forks will appear in future, which will possibly make Bitcoin unstable:
“Although the number of hard forks has been relatively small (only 2 have been formally adopted), possible future hard forks are expected to grow in number, with some sources arguing that up to 50 are possible in 2018 alone.”
The best solution recommended by the study is to empower a more centralised decision-making process regarding the direction of software development.
The authors wrote, “while it would be counterproductive to the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies to require a central decision maker to guide governance decisions on hard forks, participants in the Bitcoin network can develop elements of anticipatory governance by identifying potential software challenges early on, and identifying through discourse of various actors what software changes are likely needed to ensure the currency’s long-term survival.”
Well, this isn’t something that we are likely to see in Bitcoin. But it’s possible in EOS. It’s a coin that has an included touch of centralisation in the ecosystem as well as its software development as Block.One’s brainchild. Cryptocurrencies need trust for inspiring mass adoption, in the long run.