should have simply at the beginning actually forked the coin..as a result it likely would be a lot more successful than it is now...
Why we chose to do it as a snapshot fork instead of just copying the blockchain:
- We used a proof of stake codebase without segwit support.
- In order to prune the blockchain from a massive 147 GB to less than 1.5 GB. That original size would have severely limited masternode creation and increased staking node hardware requirements. We wouldn't have anywhere close to the 170 or so full nodes running that we have now and 0 managed masternode hosts.
To get the full bitcoin fork marketing benefits, BTC2 would have needed to launch its main net in 2017 like the early simple forks did. It just wasn't ready at that time.
I'm not an expert...but you need more angles to get folk on board. Lower your node HODL requirements for Bitcoin 2. Do an AirDrop. Something.
I'm no expert again, others on here may have better ideas, but right now, most look at this coin without the fork option the same way folks look at Litecoin 2
I think it is called. Just a branding attempt to use the name Bitcoin, without any fork, for whatever reason, still to most folk, IMHO, looks scammy/fishy as hell.
Others can chime in on here on what may work to help this along, but you need to step up and do something or again IMHO, your coin will fade like many others
that have 'fake' forked and just used a legitimate coin name without forking in the correct manner.
hard out there with all these new crypto coins popping up every day, you need something unique as a benefit to your master nodes and/or potential users to get around
what you say on BTC 2. That it was not 'possible' to do a fork of Bitcoin at launch.
Indeed a coin forking off Bitcoin 2 kinda protocols now, with a true fork, could possibly pass you up in use. Again, IMHO. This not true forking off Bitcoin is that big a deal.
Again, I know zip, just saying IMHO. Again, maybe others on here have better ideas.
brad
