Topic: Are the forkers purposely trying to kill BTC? (Read 2370 times)

This is impossible to kill bitcoin and it is the strong coin of this 21st century so the people who know deep web cannot get into it and just flourish it. Investor who had invested in it has believe in it and no one can divert his mind from this and he will invest and invest to earn more and more.

Quoting for emphasis:  "If BTC goes down against the oz of gold, it's a failure".  I see where the issue stems from now.  No wonder you think the situation is so delicate.  A temporary blip in material value is more important to you than permissionless freedom.  Purchasing power is the icing on the cake.  It's not the sole reason for using it, unless you're just a greedy shit, which is what I'm starting to suspect might be the case.  

If Bitcoin can't settle disputes utilising the consensus mechanism it's equipped with, it's a failure.  And that remains to be seen.  As such, there is no problem here.  You've got yourself all roiled up over internet drama.  Bitcoin will be fine.  As I've stated before, Bitcoin doesn't want or need your pampered, mollycoddled, nanny-state, protectionist foolishness.  Bitcoin survives in the wild and grows stronger and more robust through adaptation and freedom of choice, selecting the best code available from the open market at any given time.  Bitcoin does not need you to defend it from would-be attackers.  It can do that all by itself and, whether you personally approve of the code being used or not, Bitcoin will come out stronger at the end of it, as I suspect will the price if that's your primary concern.  This is the kind of shit I'd be expecting to explain to newbie accounts.  How the actual fuck have you not got it into your thick skull yet?



Idiotic bribery part aside, I do think it's good for Bitcoin that it's possible to hardfork and that miners can choose whichever chain they like, as can users, non-mining nodes and developers.  Are you suggesting Bitcoin would be somehow improved if we could put guns to the miners' heads and tell them what they have to do with their own hardware they took the risk investing in?  But whether I'm correct in my views or not is irrelevant.  The simple fact is, I recognise it's a natural part of the ecosystem I willingly joined.  A free and permissionless system where no one dictates anything.  You seem to be upset that it doesn't do what it said on the box and that it would be better if we could control the miners and tell them what they can or can't do.  Bitcoin can fork at any time for any reason if enough of the participants deem it worthwhile.  There is demonstrably nothing you can do to change that, so sit back and enjoy the ride.



Okay, sure, let's take a closer look at that.  Your image is a little outdated, it's actually $1.2 million now.  

Which one of the following do you take exception to?


Let's assume just for a moment that we agreed that these people are as bad as you say they are.  We categorically don't, but we'll just pretend for the moment.  Despite however untrustworthy, ill-intentioned or downright bad these people are, you still don't want them to leave?  You could be rid of them.  Separate.  Gone.  If the Core devs do decide to change the mining algorithm, these evil usurpers might never have influence over your preferred chain again.  These people are perfectly willing to leave you alone and do whatever the fuck you want.  Why can't you leave them alone?  Why are you so obstinately controlling of others, despite how utterly and truly impotent you are at doing it?  Keep throwing your toys out of the pram, baby.  It accomplishes nothing.

I'm just gonna skip past the rest of the specious shit you're slinging, and focus on one assertion at a time. Let us start with this one:


Wild-ass assertion devoid of supporting facts. Put up or shut up.

Of course price matters you dumb autist. And I don't care if its against fiat. If BTC goes down against the oz of gold, it's a failure. If what you are doing gets your purchasing power down while centralizing the network with bigger blocks, then why would anyone support this unless they were getting mad fiat gains behind the curtain?
 Hardforking bitcoin into several bitcoins = a mistake. Holders lose purchasing power and gain nothing in return, maybe the illusion that you are now more free because you forked bitcoin into an altcoin if you are stupid enough to think that.


No one owns the bitcoin brand, but it's obvious hardforking it and paying bribing miners with FIAT money so they mine your hardfork then try to claim that is the real bitcoin is a bitch ass move, but idiots like you would call this freedom and good for bitcoin. Get the fuck out of here.


https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/roger-ver-from-bitcoin-jesus-to-bitcoin-antichrist-69fc7a17c622


I don't give a fuck about satoshi, but since you hardforkers usually appeal so satoshi, I did it myself to show that even satoshi was against it.
Hardforking bitcoin because fiat corporations are behind it is a bad idea objectively no matter who says it.



Last time I checked, it was Bitcoin Unlimited releasing closed source code. Segwit2x was making the slack and github private and Garzik is trying to put his bloq shit on there, Bitcoin XT had anti privacy shit on there, the list goes on. What have any of these idiots contributed to bitcoin other than get fiat corporations and miners on board by everyone knows how? Get real buddyboy.

I do not believe forkers are trying to kill Bitcoin.  I believe they have great things in mind and needs to do it outside the Bitcoin blockchain to not affect the Bitcoin network themselves.  Besides, if they do their project on the Bitcoin main chain, they would't have a full control of the decision since it need consensus to apply anything to the main Bitcoin code.  They probably just wanted to do things themselves and do not want the burden of asking any consent from miners to developers.

If the only thing you care about is the fiat price of your coins, then frankly I don't give a shit what your opinion is.  Freedom doesn't have a price tag.  I stand firmly on the side of the argument that freedom is infinitely more valuable than some government IOUs.  Obsess about those all you like, just don't expect anyone else to care.

And no one is stealing anything, you ignorant asshat.  Stealing implies that someone owns the Bitcoin brand, so perhaps you could explain who that is, exactly?  As far as I was aware, no one own or controls Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is influenced by the code people freely choose to run.  If it turns out that enough people want to run different code, that's not an act of theft.  Either accept that, or go use some closed-source crapcoin like Ripple where no one has a choice.  It sounds like you prefer the ideals of closed-source development where no one can fork the code, so what the fuck are you even doing here?

I keep hearing about this bribery like it was some sort of documented fact.  Where is the funding from this bribery coming from?  Who, exactly, is bribing who?  Do you have any actual evidence for any of these seemingly baseless accusations?  If not, I'd ask that you stop talking shit.

And stop the pathetic appeals to authority about what Satoshi would or wouldn't have wanted.  It's just getting sad now.  Even Satoshi isn't in a position where they can tell people what to do (nor did they ever express the will to do so), so why do you think you are in a position to tell everyone what code they can or can't run?  Everyone has a choice and you can't tell them how to choose.  You and all the other authoritarian fuckwits on this board can go start your own DictatorCoin if you think you can force your views onto everyone else.  That shit doesn't fly here.

Well, maybe because it crashes the price badly everytime bitcoin forks into different bitcoins and destroys the network effect confusing people. "Oh wow, there are 3 bitcoins now? what do I buy?"

They know their shitcoin would never gain traction as an altcoin, so they try to steal the bitcoin brand by bribing corporations into accepting their shitcoin altfork.

Satoshi said clearly that he didn't want his software forked for technical reasons. Stop selling this bullshit as if it's good for bitcoin.

No airdrop from OMG, till now my account of mew still zero balance of OMG. Airdrop is free and anything is free only small numbers. It is imposible to get more than 100 USD airdrop, the biggest airdrop is about 1-10 USD. Nothing to be expected from airdrop. Signature, and twitter campaign aren't airdrop. We work as the publishers and developers as advertisers. So nothing is free. We work and get paid. Never Expect airdrop to be rich.

I think maybe it is getting out of control, and something needs to be done to control and make things remain safe, so I guess that’s what they’re trying to do. Eehm…im not actually perfect in discussing topics on forks, but if what you actually meant was a split, then I will have to let you know that there wasn’t any split on August 1st.

Yezzir. To be honest, paying bills in btc is starting to become a pain in the ass (I dont keep money in exchange wallets unless absolutely necessary, so I send money in as I need it, to Coinbase, to use my shift card.) A 100 dollar bill has a 3-5 dollar additional fee on it, a twenty dollar tank of gas has something like a 10-20% fee on it . It got so bad, fee wise and congestion wise, that I switched over to my eth wallet to fund my card. Much faster, much cheaper.


Bitcoin is playing a dangerous game. Nostalgia is great, but we are going to get left in the dust.

I think really the airdrops are having the biggest effect rather than the forks.  Why sell your Bitcoin when you can sell from the huge number of airdrops you get just from holding onto them.

If it is true that unconfirmed transactions are caused by politically motivated DDoS spam rather than block size, increasing block size won't do anything to fix it.



Labeling bitcoin's low transaction speed a "scaling issue" is a failure of terminology.

Its like a website being DDoS spammed and choosing to call it a "bandwidth issue".

Bitcoin -- in the form of Bitcoin Cash -- can process about 25 transactions a second. And for the interval of time when demand does not outstrip this capacity, zero conf transactions are reasonably safe for many use cases. Which yields a user experience roughly on par with credit cards to the buyer, and markedly superior than credit cards for the vendor.

Will 25/sec be enough five years from now? No, but the incessant march of technology will resolve that issue.

Bitcoin can process approximately 3 transactions per second while credit cards can process upwards of thousands per second.

If you drift off topic and discuss "post time" that's something else.

The block size argument misleads people into thinking bitcoin can process transactions at the same speed credit cards can achieve. That they can "buy coffee with bitcoin" the same way they would with a credit card.

Even with 8 MB block sizes bitcoin will still be extremely slow in comparison to credit cards. Bitcoin will never be fast enough to process thousands of transactions per second the way credit cards do. That's the main point that could be relevent in terms of people questioning whether they want to risk security and decentralization for a relatively small gain in transaction speed which may not fix the issues bitcoin has had with unconfirmed transactions.


This is interesting:

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/something-odd-is-happening-at-bitcoins-largest-mining-pool-cm756139


In cases like this, increasing block size won't do anything to increase transaction speed when blocks are full to "99 KB, 369 KB and 860 KB" capacity.

False comparison. On a human scale, bitcoin transactions post in about the same time as credit card transactions - a couple seconds. Bitcoin transactions settle in several ten minute intervals. In contrast, credit card transactions settle in thirty days or more.

And when blocks are not chronically full, zero conf transactions are reliable enough for the majority of retail purchases. At least they were, until RBF broke them.

If bitcoin's speed is 3 transactions per second and 2MB blocks scale to 6 transactions per second with 8 MB blocks scaling to 24 transactions per second...

Bitcoin will still be incredibly slow by the standards of credit cards & other payment systems which achieve thousands of transactions per second. 24 transactions per second with 8 MB blocks is still extremely slow.

Many 1 MB blocks on bitcoin core are mined are not 100% filled to capacity. There are many 1 MB blocks which contain only 600 kilobytes due to miners imposing conditions on transaction fees to limit which transactions they mine. Even if block size was increased to 2 MB or 8 MB there would be many blocks which were only filled to 25% or lower capacity due to miners only processing transactions containing above a certain threshold of transaction fee.

Transactions per second is a theoretical number which can vary. It is possible to increase block size and see transactions per second increase a smaller than expected amount.

Would you agree that miners have more control than that, if they control a majority of global hash power? The chain with the most cumulative POW is considered the strongest chain (i.e. the main chain). Consideration of validity aside, a majority of hash power therefore is very meaningful to a lot of bitcoiners.

So I think it's helpful to think about this not from the perspective of individual or casual miners. A group of miners (which could be malicious), or a single chip manufacturer (i.e. Bitmain) could control said hash power. What then? What I'm getting at is, should we (as users) simply put up with such actors, and continue to follow the strongest chain? At what point (re, for example, miner centralization) would you say that splitting off from the network is worth it?

I agree that everyone is free to do whatever is in their power (how Stirner-esque)...the biggest hurdle I see is that users, by and large, are relatively new to the ecosystem. Many are largely non-technical and investment-oriented. In the short term, it makes sense for the herd to follow the longest chain, even if that might be detrimental to the system (re decentralization) in the long term.

Yes, they’re purposely doing it. That’s what I believe. But, the main purpose of doing this is to maintain the Blockchain, though some people are having personal interest. Anyone with a plan to end Bitcoin, might be someone in support of an altcoin, which I know there are people with such purpose.

Well said! I guarantee you're not alone in this. There are still far too few camps to be the only one in any By words and action, I see myself in the biggest camp of them all: users who wait, see, and choose the solution that works and is (or seems) easiest. And that actually works too, as developers and miners ultimately are influenced by what (they perceive) users feel is best.

Like you said: we've actually got quite a good system that is actually working. Anyone is free to do as they will or are able to, and yet cannot dictate on their own what others must do. And as you point out, none of the discussions, arguments, even the whining, are forced on anyone. We're free to be annoyed by them, add to them, or stay oblivious.

Bitcoin isn't broken, and no one is trying to kill it. It's playing out the way it was designed to.

I don't know but i heard that BitcoinCash it was created to overcome the BTC , now i don't know if this is true but BCH had a big increase and people have chosen to invest in her.