First, there is a total of just over 200 currencies around the world, while there are already 1000s of different cryptocurrencies (imagine 1000s of different forked versions which are forked further).
i have a laser printer at home and some simple A4 papers. i design some pretty square image and write a number on top right corner of it and then start printing it.
if you think what i just printed is a "currency" like what USD, ... are then yes there are 1000s of different cryptocurrencies.
Cryptocurrencies should face the same market forces. While people may view Bitcoin cash as valuable and as it stands, it seems that a correction did not happen, the cryptocurrency community should treat forks of coins with the contempt they deserve. When BCH was created out of thin air, its value should have been 0.001$ but instead, the market valued it at $700 and now its about $300. Holders of bitcoin were rewarded new valuable currency as though it were largess. The next cryptocurrency fork should be treated harshly especially if it’s a further BTC split.
they are treated harshly the same way most altcoins are treated.
this has nothing to do with their prices, it is all the economy that never switches over. you are talking about "currency" in this topic and that means when they are being treated harshly!
when no merchant, services, payment processor,... even considers using any of these altcoins that proves they are useless.
the price is just for speculators wanting to make more money ($$$) out of it. the market is easily manipulated too and there are people who are still hopeful that BCC reaches the same price as BTC so they they are hodling!
and in my opinion it is a decentralized and free market we can not and should not tell others what they can or can not do.
My point is that currently few merchants and payment processors recognise the main cryptocurrencies (BTC,ETH)etc. The idea of forked versions which come out of nowhere (There's talk of Bitcoin Segwit 2x Hard fork this November already!), should have value is ridiculous and I am suggesting that once the market collectively get the relevant information the correction of these forked versions to junk status will happen, while significantly affecting the value of the principal version. In the meanwhile convincing humans that something that literally didn't exist yesterday has a value of hundred of dollars will fail miserably (even convincing the public to adopt cryptos could be a hard sell). If we want to preserve our crypto environment, we should collectively reject the vast majority of the forking attempts to protect ourselves.
It is granted that fiat is generally brought into creation by borrowing against a balance of zero by central banks across the world. While people may compare this to a fork situation where seemingly an entire new concurrent stream of cryptocurrency based on the principle is created, I think that there are many differences.
First, there is a total of just over 200 currencies around the world, while there are already 1000s of different cryptocurrencies (imagine 1000s of different forked versions which are forked further). Secondly, when a currency is borrowed against nothing (with certain exceptions) the currency depreciates Sharpley in value. It does not increase. There’s no way that our governments can announce that we all have an equal amount of new currency based on what you had at the time of announcement and expect it to be valuable.
Cryptocurrencies should face the same market forces. While people may view Bitcoin cash as valuable and as it stands, it seems that a correction did not happen, the cryptocurrency community should treat forks of coins with the contempt they deserve. When BCH was created out of thin air, its value should have been 0.001$ but instead, the market valued it at $700 and now its about $300. Holders of bitcoin were rewarded new valuable currency as though it were largess. The next cryptocurrency fork should be treated harshly especially if it’s a further BTC split.
This issue of forking must be addressed if cryptocurrencies are to become as accepted and understood as fiat.
It is the market which attributes to different forks. Bitcoin Cash does have significant backing and actually split the bitcoin community. So it would be wrong to attribute 0 value to it. Bitcoin has risen post the split. That does not take away anything from Bitcoin Cash.
What about the planned Bitcoin Segwit 2x hard fork and the next one and the one after that. We should draw the line somewhere otherwise we will be doing this noble idea of cryptos a disservice. Bitcoin has only risen because there wasnt a 'hard fork' but lets not forget, the same way BTC has risen quickly, it can fall..taking down the entire industry!
I think just in the case of the bitcoin cash split, the fork probably has some value.
After all, it's a split from the dominant currency.
Bitcoin has become a brand and it has public notification.
A fork from bitcoin inherits in my eyes some of the brand value of bitcoin.
At the same time the brand value of bitcoin stays the same.
If the value of bitcoin cash realy is as high as it was/is of course there are different opinions for that.
It makes sense that bch is building on BTC's recognisable name. But where does it stop and at what point does the value of BTC drop significantly because of all the uncertainty surrounding each fork and the unknowable number of future forks?