There is a question to me why someone want to kill a network that pay them every day. Maybe the answer is that they want to kill bitcoin so they can switch after that to bcash. Is more centralised and can control it very easy. I cant find any other reason.
It seems Satoshi was very idealistic to believe that economical interest will be the main reason for the miners to protect the network. It seems miners has form a cartel and they are against their economical interest and only want to destroy bitcoin.
Topic: Are the forkers purposely trying to kill BTC? - page 4. (Read 2387 times)
If you willingly rely on someone to do something for you, are they in control of you?
Keeping in mind, if you don't like what they're doing for you, you can rely on other people to do that exact same job the way you want them to do it? In order to use Bitcoin effectively, there have to be miners and non-mining nodes securing that chain. But everyone has the freedom to chose which chain they want to interact on. So if the miners you currently rely on to use the chain you're interacting on, suddenly decide they want to use a different chain, does that sound like control to you? Or is that freedom?
Why can't you just rely on some other miners to secure your preferred chain and leave these miners to do what they want to do?
This entire argument seems to hinge on the focal point where people don't understand that miners aren't your slaves. It sounds like you want to control them, not the other way around. You people have the whole damn thing completely ass-backwards.
Think on that.
Keeping in mind, if you don't like what they're doing for you, you can rely on other people to do that exact same job the way you want them to do it? In order to use Bitcoin effectively, there have to be miners and non-mining nodes securing that chain. But everyone has the freedom to chose which chain they want to interact on. So if the miners you currently rely on to use the chain you're interacting on, suddenly decide they want to use a different chain, does that sound like control to you? Or is that freedom?
Why can't you just rely on some other miners to secure your preferred chain and leave these miners to do what they want to do?
This entire argument seems to hinge on the focal point where people don't understand that miners aren't your slaves. It sounds like you want to control them, not the other way around. You people have the whole damn thing completely ass-backwards.
Think on that.
Users depend on miners for transaction confirmations. This is why, for example, if 99+ % of miners hard forked, that it would be coercive. Due to the difficulty algorithm, users would have no choice but to follow the miners if they want a functioning network.
It's not that miners are "slaves." It's that the protocol was designed to incentivize miners to work for block rewards because of user demand. The way you frame this throws the incentive mechanism on its head.
And you propose we gauge user demand by arguing hypotheticals for the rest of time? With everyone speaking for everyone else? The perpetual tribal conflict with neither side backing down, bickering for the rest of eternity. Yeah... sounds like fun.
The only way this works is to get on with it and see what people actually use. There's also that tiny and persistent non-sequitur where people can't logically make the argument that "non-mining nodes are vital and the network can't survive without them", whilst simultaneously claiming that "miners supposedly make all the decisions and the non-mining nodes are completely powerless to prevent it". You can't have it both ways, so which is it? My stance is that non-mining nodes do matter, so if they don't support the miners, the issue should be swiftly resolved and the miners won't build a successful chain (but you still have no right or ability to deny them the chance to try, though, precisely because no one is in control of anyone). So again, let's just get on with it. There is literally no other way through this unless one of the two sides starts making concessions. I don't see any hint of that happening yet. So the two sides are going to do their own thing. And fair play to 'em.
In the scheme of things, I don't think Bitcoin Cash was coercive. It was an opt-in hard fork intended to split off from the network. That's the ideal way to hard fork. But I do think that Bitmain et al would do whatever is in their power (manipulating the BTC and BCH markets, and using Bitmain's hashpower to give the appearance of market demand when that demand may be fabricated) to see their side win.
No, I don't think that forkers have the intent of killing btc. Many of those innovations are actually carried out for the greater good and solve the scalability problems. I find many aspects of forking pretty sensible. That said, everyone is still holding on to their own business interests.
I also think that way, because forking BTC and creating a new coin in the process might make the new coin more valuable. I think that forks are happening to make the services of transaction more smooth, but it creates more unstability in the world of BTC.
If you willingly rely on someone to do something for you, are they in control of you?
Keeping in mind, if you don't like what they're doing for you, you can rely on other people to do that exact same job the way you want them to do it? In order to use Bitcoin effectively, there have to be miners and non-mining nodes securing that chain. But everyone has the freedom to chose which chain they want to interact on. So if the miners you currently rely on to use the chain you're interacting on, suddenly decide they want to use a different chain, does that sound like control to you? Or is that freedom?
Why can't you just rely on some other miners to secure your preferred chain and leave these miners to do what they want to do?
This entire argument seems to hinge on the focal point where people don't understand that miners aren't your slaves. It sounds like you want to control them, not the other way around. You people have the whole damn thing completely ass-backwards.
Think on that.
Keeping in mind, if you don't like what they're doing for you, you can rely on other people to do that exact same job the way you want them to do it? In order to use Bitcoin effectively, there have to be miners and non-mining nodes securing that chain. But everyone has the freedom to chose which chain they want to interact on. So if the miners you currently rely on to use the chain you're interacting on, suddenly decide they want to use a different chain, does that sound like control to you? Or is that freedom?
Why can't you just rely on some other miners to secure your preferred chain and leave these miners to do what they want to do?
This entire argument seems to hinge on the focal point where people don't understand that miners aren't your slaves. It sounds like you want to control them, not the other way around. You people have the whole damn thing completely ass-backwards.
Think on that.
Users depend on miners for transaction confirmations. This is why, for example, if 99+ % of miners hard forked, that it would be coercive. Due to the difficulty algorithm, users would have no choice but to follow the miners if they want a functioning network.
It's not that miners are "slaves." It's that the protocol was designed to incentivize miners to work for block rewards because of user demand. The way you frame this throws the incentive mechanism on its head.
And you propose we gauge user demand by arguing hypotheticals for the rest of time? With everyone speaking for everyone else? The perpetual tribal conflict with neither side backing down, bickering for the rest of eternity. Yeah... sounds like fun.
The only way this works is to get on with it and see what people actually use. There's also that tiny and persistent non-sequitur where people can't logically make the argument that "non-mining nodes are vital and the network can't survive without them", whilst simultaneously claiming that "miners supposedly make all the decisions and the non-mining nodes are completely powerless to prevent it". You can't have it both ways, so which is it? My stance is that non-mining nodes do matter, so if they don't support the miners, the issue should be swiftly resolved and the miners won't build a successful chain (but you still have no right or ability to deny them the chance to try, though, precisely because no one is in control of anyone). So again, let's just get on with it. There is literally no other way through this unless one of the two sides starts making concessions. I don't see any hint of that happening yet. So the two sides are going to do their own thing. And fair play to 'em.
Ultimately, it's still an issue of freedom and not one of control. Whatever else is said, nothing will change this. I'm mentally deducting credibility points from anyone who uses those phrases. The "hostile takeover", "cabal", "benevolent dictator", "taking control", etc, because they all imply that the user of those phrases simply doesn't understand the core tenet of permissionless. Everyone does what they want. Qué Sera and such.
You always have alternatives, you just don't happen to like those alternatives as much as trying (and failing) to dictate terms and force your own views onto the miners.
These people will not gain anything if Bitcoin is dead. Because even the altcoin prices are linked to the exchange rates of Bitcoin. Altcoins will crash even more if the Bitcoin prices crash. So my guess is that they just want to control the future development of Bitcoin, rather than destroying it.
It's definitely about controlling the future development of Bitcoin--including securing Asic-Boost and keeping the majority of transactions on-chain, rather than pursuing the Lightning Network.
But regarding your point about altcoin prices: maybe that's true over the short term, but wouldn't exchanges just open BCH markets for altcoins? If it really took over?
The forks are shaking the very foundation of BTC's attraction ... that is away from the whims and motive of a controlling cabal. One could have been dismissed, but now a 2nd one starts establishing a pattern.
Not really. They are just trying to create a new cyptocurrency out of an established one - BITCOIN. Another reason why forking happens is that they want to make the transactions faster with lower fees. Before the forking happened on August 1, the transaction traffic (esp. in blockchain) is so slow that it even take a week for your transactions to be confirmed. The forks are just all part of the process....They're a necessary part of the evolution of the platform. The problem isn't really the forking---> the problem is that the forked chains aren't dying fast enough, right? If you think about it, as long you're hodling, then you're guaranteed to be hodling something on the winning chain. They're ALL bitcoin, just different species of bitcoin, and you want to be hodling the species that is the most adaptable to this ever changing environment, right? Maybe it's time to start thinking in non-binary terms----> it's not REALLY one or the other because they're really all just one interconnected "fuzzy chain."
EDIT: Can you tell that the weed's getting good in California?
EDIT: Can you tell that the weed's getting good in California?
The problem is that some forks become altcoins with quite confusing names and quite big claims on Bitcoin legacy.
But it's about money and power, so it's not unexpected for this to happen.
And we may have forks even this year, however, the last fork was imho a bigger success than many have expected.
The question is then begged: how are the forks damaging the original protocol?
Metcalfe's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law
If the value of the Bitcoin network is increasing based on the increasing number of users on the network, the reverse should also hold true. If BTC users are migrating to BCH, that shrinks the the size and utility of the BTC network.
I've seen some math on the subject; I wish I could remember where I've seen the charts (maybe one of Jimmy Song's posts?) Anyway, the idea is that if a major network split occurred (like 50-50), the damage to the value of the combined networks would be significant, and together, they would be worth far less than the original network. This makes sense, since each network would be far less useful than the original (combined) network.
There's a few reasons why Metcalfe's law doesn't apply here: 1) the nodes aren't equal (monetarily), 2) the network isn't splitting -- it's really duplicating from a non-miners perspective, and 3) it doesn't take into account the positive effects associated with the splitting process. Right? Just think, to use a Metcalfe variable, if we still communicated by facsimile instead of through it's child technology, the world wide web....bitcoin transactions would be quite a bit more precarious.
Why can't you just rely on some other miners to secure your preferred chain and leave these miners to do what they want to do?
This entire argument seems to hinge on the focal point where people don't understand that miners aren't your slaves. It sounds like you want to control them, not the other way around. You people have the whole damn thing completely ass-backwards.
Think on that.
This entire argument seems to hinge on the focal point where people don't understand that miners aren't your slaves. It sounds like you want to control them, not the other way around. You people have the whole damn thing completely ass-backwards.
Think on that.
Users depend on miners for transaction confirmations. This is why, for example, if 99+ % of miners hard forked, that it would be coercive. Due to the difficulty algorithm, users would have no choice but to follow the miners if they want a functioning network.
It's not that miners are "slaves." It's that the protocol was designed to incentivize miners to work for block rewards because of user demand. The way you frame this throws the incentive mechanism on its head.
I also have the feeling that a lot of people are coming with their series if forks just to create confusion here and there and the issue I have with them is to stop using the name bitcoin call it any other name you so wish and stop making it seems you are working in the interest of bitcoin. I am sure when this other fork happens, then a lot of panic will happen with several crash prices and at the end, it won't really solve anything. I just wished Satoshi can come and lock the whole thing to avoid all this adulteration.
Well, they are damn good with creating confusion, I must say. There are many people on this forum who believe it's wrong to call bch an altcoin, for it is the truest btc. Plus, the price bitcoin cash has is absolutely crazy. And it became #3 in marketcap in a week or two, whereas other currencies move slowly to deserve such a high position. Anyway, I'm glad it doesn't really make a difference to bitcoin, it grows in price no matter what happens.
These people will not gain anything if Bitcoin is dead. Because even the altcoin prices are linked to the exchange rates of Bitcoin. Altcoins will crash even more if the Bitcoin prices crash. So my guess is that they just want to control the future development of Bitcoin, rather than destroying it.
The forks are shaking the very foundation of BTC's attraction ... that is away from the whims and motive of a controlling cabal. One could have been dismissed, but now a 2nd one starts establishing a pattern.
So let's look at this from a slightly different perspective. If you willingly rely on someone to do something for you, are they in control of you?
Keeping in mind, if you don't like what they're doing for you, you can rely on other people to do that exact same job the way you want them to do it? In order to use Bitcoin effectively, there have to be miners and non-mining nodes securing that chain. But everyone has the freedom to chose which chain they want to interact on. So if the miners you currently rely on to use the chain you're interacting on, suddenly decide they want to use a different chain, does that sound like control to you? Or is that freedom?
Why can't you just rely on some other miners to secure your preferred chain and leave these miners to do what they want to do?
This entire argument seems to hinge on the focal point where people don't understand that miners aren't your slaves. It sounds like you want to control them, not the other way around. You people have the whole damn thing completely ass-backwards.
Think on that.
Bitpay and Coinbase -- their business model depends on cheap fees. Investors in such companies -- like Roger Ver. And they've all been pushing for hard fork block size increases all along. It's all about their business interests.
I think you are confused buddy. Blockstream/Core is the 'business interest'. Roger Ver is Bitcoin Jesus. Bitcoin Jesus is the savior of Bitcoin and he does this from the purity and goodness of his heart. He has only the interests of the community. Bow to Jesus like it says in the bible. The forks are just all part of the process....They're a necessary part of the evolution of the platform. The problem isn't really the forking---> the problem is that the forked chains aren't dying fast enough, right? If you think about it, as long you're hodling, then you're guaranteed to be hodling something on the winning chain. They're ALL bitcoin, just different species of bitcoin, and you want to be hodling the species that is the most adaptable to this ever changing environment, right? Maybe it's time to start thinking in non-binary terms----> it's not REALLY one or the other because they're really all just one interconnected "fuzzy chain."
EDIT: Can you tell that the weed's getting good in California?
EDIT: Can you tell that the weed's getting good in California?
The problem is that some forks become altcoins with quite confusing names and quite big claims on Bitcoin legacy.
But it's about money and power, so it's not unexpected for this to happen.
And we may have forks even this year, however, the last fork was imho a bigger success than many have expected.
The question is then begged: how are the forks damaging the original protocol?
Metcalfe's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law
If the value of the Bitcoin network is increasing based on the increasing number of users on the network, the reverse should also hold true. If BTC users are migrating to BCH, that shrinks the the size and utility of the BTC network.
I've seen some math on the subject; I wish I could remember where I've seen the charts (maybe one of Jimmy Song's posts?) Anyway, the idea is that if a major network split occurred (like 50-50), the damage to the value of the combined networks would be significant, and together, they would be worth far less than the original network. This makes sense, since each network would be far less useful than the original (combined) network.
The forks are just all part of the process....They're a necessary part of the evolution of the platform. The problem isn't really the forking---> the problem is that the forked chains aren't dying fast enough, right? If you think about it, as long you're hodling, then you're guaranteed to be hodling something on the winning chain. They're ALL bitcoin, just different species of bitcoin, and you want to be hodling the species that is the most adaptable to this ever changing environment, right? Maybe it's time to start thinking in non-binary terms----> it's not REALLY one or the other because they're really all just one interconnected "fuzzy chain."
EDIT: Can you tell that the weed's getting good in California?
EDIT: Can you tell that the weed's getting good in California?
The problem is that some forks become altcoins with quite confusing names and quite big claims on Bitcoin legacy.
But it's about money and power, so it's not unexpected for this to happen.
And we may have forks even this year, however, the last fork was imho a bigger success than many have expected.
The question is then begged: how are the forks damaging the original protocol?
problem is the platform itself is no longer "immutable" in the sense a small cabal can change it.
The ledger is still for all practicality "immutable." It even preserves itself across chains....Now, the platform was never meant to be immutable---> that's the whole purpose for the pulls, the commits, and the consensus algorithms....right?
A new fork means a new airdrop for us like with BCH. You can only win. Either sell it for profit or keep it and hope that the new Altcoin rises in price. But the most important thing is that the main Bitcoin gets stronger afterwards.
*does not compute*
if we keep splitting the network, we're diluting the base of prospective investors (now they have multiple forks to choose from to invest in). more than that, they'll be confused, especially since there's supposed to be only 21 million bitcoins, but apparently, there are multiple forks of bitcoin. this throws into question the whole idea that bitcoin is deflationary, since it can just be forked and new supply created.
if it were just "free money" that would be great. but if you can sell it, it means someone is buying it. it means there is *demand* which means less demand for BTC. i don't see how that makes BTC stronger.
I think there are two groups of forkers:
Those who actually want to improve things, and those who see the fork as an option to make money.
For the second group, they do not care what the consequences for the whole cryptocurrency sector are.
Even if that would be the end of all crypto.
Those who actually want to improve things, and those who see the fork as an option to make money.
For the second group, they do not care what the consequences for the whole cryptocurrency sector are.
Even if that would be the end of all crypto.
A new fork means a new airdrop for us like with BCH. You can only win. Either sell it for profit or keep it and hope that the new Altcoin rises in price. But the most important thing is that the main Bitcoin gets stronger afterwards.
The forks are shaking the very foundation of BTC's attraction ... that is away from the whims and motive of a controlling cabal. One could have been dismissed, but now a 2nd one starts establishing a pattern.
The fact of the matter is that human nature is greedy. That is why there are people trying to control bitcoins their own way. This is the reason why there have been a lot of talks and proposal about having a bitcoin fork. Though what is nice about bitcoins is that before something gets implemented that would mean the community must approve such a change. However, this results into politicking among the majority players of bitcoins.
The forks are just all part of the process....They're a necessary part of the evolution of the platform. The problem isn't really the forking---> the problem is that the forked chains aren't dying fast enough, right? If you think about it, as long you're hodling, then you're guaranteed to be hodling something on the winning chain. They're ALL bitcoin, just different species of bitcoin, and you want to be hodling the species that is the most adaptable to this ever changing environment, right? Maybe it's time to start thinking in non-binary terms----> it's not REALLY one or the other because they're really all just one interconnected "fuzzy chain."
EDIT: Can you tell that the weed's getting good in California?
problem is the platform itself is no longer "immutable" in the sense a small cabal can change it. EDIT: Can you tell that the weed's getting good in California?
Jump to: