Topic: How to end the "BTC Civil War" before it gets worse? (Read 1086 times)

Google: "BTC Civil War"  /  Top 3 results


1) How to end the "BTC Civil War" before it gets worse? - Bitcoin Forum
https://bitcointalk.org › ... › How to end the "BTC Civil War" before it gets worse?

2) Op-Ed: The Bitcoin Cash 'Hash War' was Never [Just ... - CCN.com
https://www.ccn.com › News

3) I'm tired of BTC Civil war : Monero - Reddit
Nov 19, 2018 - To put it bluntly: While the outcome was likely inevitable, Bitcoin Cash lost the BTC civil war the moment its proponents began referring to it as ...
I'm tired of BTC Civil war : Monero - Reddit...



I have been away from BTC for too long, is the "BTC Civil War" over now?

thank you for the clarification mate sorry for my wrong interpretation about the topic. but for my opinion war is war nothing good effect even in the cryptocurrency world have big possibility bitcoin die.

That is a useful distinction, and the "two major coins" are one type of division. For the ongoing, media-hyped "Bitcoin Civil War" we still have:


I understand some solutions are in progress. Part of this "Serious discussion" is over my head, so there is a chance to expand and learn.
Peace.

This thread is not for war and I can't correlate what you are saying to the main topic. You should read again the whole thread mate. This is more like a "cold war in cryptocurrency world".

in times of war bitcoin goes die for my opinion, the reason why is in times of war all power supply around the world possible to shutdown bitcoin is using the internet connection if the all system down bitcoin goes die, not only a bitcoin i think have  possble end of the world if the wars begins.
civil war is on the bible prediction if have civil war the world have possibility to gone and all people also die.

People are confused, even long term holders forced to sell in the BCH fork. The Bitcoin community is deeply divided , no I should say the crypto community!! I think this is not just a civil war, the problem is loud and clear, and the solution is the development of the blockchain.
Technology is an ever changing thing, unless we don't achieve the perfect digital money, the war (this) won't end.


My hands are tied
The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride *** humming continues....
-Guns N' Roses – Civil War

People need to Start being accountable for whatever transaction that occurs in the field of bitcoin and with this can boost confidence of those who are hoping to have bitcoin their choice of crypto currency

The community is divided that's why the bcash forked bitcoin.

I've only been in the crypto space for two years now. I enjoy the various altcoin projects BUT when it comes to BTC I'm a purest. I see the code as the most beautiful creation, we can use the lightning network or use other BTC forks or any other coin for payment purposes.

BTC is and will always be the MASTER, yes there are substantially better payment options but at the core of the cryptocurrency is BTC.

 

I am confident that Bitcoin will scale in the right way given time. But people can be quite impatient.
 

I don't think that bitcoin community is deeply divided
we are online and people express their opinion but it doesn't mean that the community is divided
maybe people are a little frustrated but it is normal, this is a big revolution and bitcoin is the game changer
all the focus is on bitcoin

everybody knows that lighting network is operative now that it means veeery low fees and fe seconds transactions

just be patient and HODL!

What will this body to regulate do?

totally agree on this, i mean that's what make us people. The diversity itself, i believe the FUDs we are hearing are relevant in some ways if deeply think of it. I believe there will be no competition and growth for the crypto society if there are no such things like this.

I have read important views and how to go about it but from my point of view is the beginning of the situation is when the BCH fork happen because before then, all we do is complain and complain about how situation of things are but nobody was thinking of taking sides. The only competition was between bitcoin and ETH but at the outbreak of the fork then we see infighting with people taking sides.

Solution to the problem is what I will agree with what Darkstar_ propounded because every other options will only be temporary while having a body to regulate will defeat decentralization. The moment the lightning network is done to have maximum adoption, lots of issue surrounding bitcoin is 70% solved while we live with the rest.

I think a wider adoption of Bitcoin would create a higher demand. With the higher demand would come in competition to give better results. I believe this will slowly happen until crytpo currency is the main form of fiat.

I don't think it is just about the fees. The scalability problem is also about time needed to process the transactions, which I think you should agree is equally important.

Another two things that need to be addresses are volatility and security. Volatility cannot be dealt with, it will come with the maturity of the market.
But the security is indeed the main issue at the moment and it is the most difficult problem to be dealt with as one community cannot by themselves control third-party applications and web pages.

The simple way to end the civil war is to introduce cheap transactions fees as soon as possible.

The entire crypto market needs Bitcoin to do well.

If users can actually use Bitcoin (without feeling like they are getting ripped off) then all the other bs & forks becomes irrelevant.

If i was new and just bought my first amount of Bitcoin on localbitcoins.com then put it into purse.io to buy some discounted stuff from Amazon, then i would currently be buying at a higher price than Amazon (with fees added). It's messing everything up, this is just one example of how it's not working.

I don't want to have to change my Bitcoin for eth or limit my usage just so i can use it.

Cheap fees, so that it becomes functional again to new users is all that's required.

Coinbase is either technically incompetent that they do not understand how to fork the technology.
Or they are scam artists and forked it, but kept all the money to themselves.

You cannot end it. The fork has happened and the two coins have gone their seperate ways.

I see this as a free market where people decide what they want to support. I've seen many people who likes BCH and think it will ge great one day... I prefer BTC... I dont see it as a war, but like a ''democracy'' where people buy and your money is like a vote that says ''please, keep going with your job.''

Let people fork btc as much they want. Everyone should be free to do whatelse they want. These scam coins will not go anywhere, unless they really develop something userfull.

As with every system there is a problem of centralisation, and as we all know - there is a problem of scaling.

Basically a fork of some sort that would adopt two things at the same time could do the trick, although it is a long stretch (fighting against human nature always is, and it is simply used to centralisation.... well maybe it is not just the human thing - every herd has it's leader...):

1. Adoption of great ideas coming from altcoins - about scaling, fees, smart contracts, security etc.
2. Joining with some other community and promoting a sort of equality system. For beginning - the community could limit the maximum amount of Bitcoin that one individual could be having. I am not saying it is a good idea because we are : a. ways past socialism, communism and similar ideas, b. it would be technically almost impossible to check if some individual is not in possession of a dozen of different wallets etc. c. it would destroy the idea of annonimity.  But, what I am saying is that there should be something like this involved/adopted. Only something really revolutionising could take people's notice, and finally getting rid of centralisation in a true sense would do that, at least it would for me.

Well it is dominated by power bases, each with a different degrees of centralization/decentralization.
Devs, Miners, FullNodes - although you might think of other names.

Is that a centralization? Then I think every crypto, despite the ideological claptrap
is centralized to a degree, must be, and we might as well be thinking in terms of different
levels of centralization/decentralization that might very well be caused by some immutable
constraints.

Hmm, civil war? That's a laugh.

It's crazy how centralized Bitcoin actually is already.

A very tiny fraction of people make most of the choice for the majority currently. It's more like here's several superpower like entities all deciding the fate of this cryptocurrency.

It's the other way round.

Holders are ok with small blocks because of the "anti-censorship" that comes with
the ability to run a full node with limited resources, which is made possible by
the smaller amount of transactions in smaller blocks.

Users - i.e. people who would like to actually buy things with bitcoin - would benefit
from bigger blocks, smaller transaction fees and faster processing of orders.

I agree, Bitcoin became a business for some, and business always call for parasites:

- There is people who support Satoshi's vision of a free and decentralized currency.
- There is people who only care about the money they can make, it does not matter if they have to buy BTC, LTC, trashcoin, bubblecoin, or stones of the garden of the grandma. They will support BTC as long as they can make money.
- There is people who see their business, power and control, negatively affected by a decentralized currency: bankers, credit cards, goverments.


People with different interests always will create wars. We must agree that, for the welfare of everybody, the cryptocurrency economy must to be fair for everybody, in my opinion, decentralized.

It is important to define how it is divided. In my opinion there are people that wants to use Bitcoin (users) and people that wants to sell Bitcoin for a lot of cash (holders). Both groups wants different things or sometimes same things for different reasons.

Low mining fees
Both users and holders want it because nobody wants to pay too much.
Users wants it more because they pay it multiple times.
Holders does not care that much - they need to move it to an exchange once in a while. And they usually cheap out on mining fee.

Lightning Network
Both users and holders want it.
Users want it for micropayments.
Holders want it for good news and reason for BTC price to go higher.

Big blocks
Holders want it more than users.
Big blocks lower mining fees while making running node more expensive. Holders rarely run a node.

Segwit
(Almost) nobody understands what it is.
Users believe it will lower mining fees.
Holders believe it will raise the price.

Privacy
Some users wants privacy.
Most of holders does not care about privacy.

Fiat-BTC exchange
Both users and holders wants it.
Users likes fiat exchanges because it allows merchants to know value of BTC.
Holders likes fiat exchanges because they increase the price.

Crypto-only exchanges
Users does not care.
Holders use them to speculate on price. They do not care which asset "goes to moon". As long as their virtual account is values higher - they are happy.

Online wallets
This is interesting and weird.
Users do not trust them and have no reason to use them.
Holders use online wallet because they brought Bitcoins there. They also prefer keeping altcoins in online wallet / exchange because they... do not care what they brought. They cannot be asked to download and install wallet of their price-skyrocketting coin.

Based on this analysis I believe there is no war here. As a user I do not see why we should care about holders. They will come and go. They will say a lot of things and none of that matters. They have no reason to fight users.

From what I've read, the developers of Bitcoin was aware the current issues we're having now years ago. It's just upsetting that because of the back and forth between the developers, and we get caught in the middle. I really do think if the current situation doesn't improve Bitcoin will stagnate.

I know Lightning is supposed to be a solution to the high fees but who knows when that will be implemented. I believe this "civil war" could all end if both sides could agree on what's best for the users of Bitcoin / ecosystem in general.

Is it not possible for these developers to come ahead with a different sight? Like a blockchain summit or something? Use their knowledge, not to argue, but to decide one thing for all, upgrade just once and prove their work without debating too much? It's these exchanges and other major parts too who are doing bullshit at their end, by not accepting these upgrades or misleading people about the changes already accepted by people.

I am confident that Bitcoin will scale in the right way given time. But people can be quite impatient.
It's just a shame that new people coming in to the space are witnessing the high fees that we are currently experiencing and are much more interested in the latest shiny new crypto rather than the truly decentralised system that is Bitcoin.

You're right buddy, but I think that Bitcoin lost too much. Bitcoin had a huge advantage a few years ago - Bitcoin had accepted merchants we really pay using Bitcoin, maybe one could argue that this is not important, but not me. I think this adoption amongst people and merchants was very important to push Bitcoin further, however, Bitcoin has stucked and now it's only about who create the biggest profit, what a pitty. If we were time travellers we could change it, but we all should admitt, Bitcoin failed in currently form

I'm not quite sure how far along developement is for Schnorr signatures, but I think a much better improvement is the Lightning Network for the long run. Decreases in transaction sizes are good, but it's only a small, temporary solution. Take a closer look into LN if you haven't already, as it's been tested on the testnet for quite some time now, started to be tested on the mainnet, and VPN provider TorGuard[1] started accepting Lightning transactions.

[1] https://twitter.com/TorGuard/status/950383059735646209

Yeah, the first thing the community should focus on is getting segwit adoption growing...
If everyone started using segwit, the mempool would significantly reduce in size and everyone would benefit from it.

I'm already trying to use my segwit address as much as possible and I definitely notice a difference in how much fees I'm paying.

Schnorr signatures are the next step IMO, together with segwit they would mean a very significant reduction in transaction sizes.
Does anyone know how far along the development of that is? Or where I can follow development?

I totally agree people used to get excited about fork because it means free money for bitcoin holders, but with so many fork coming every fork challenge the supremacy of the original one and this is not good for the community.

The reason we are in this situation is because the people who claim they are supporting Satoshi vision only care about controlling bitcoin even though they have enough money to simply not care, as soon as BCH came to life, we started to see more useless forks each few weeks. There are a lot of things that currently need development such as Schnorr, TumbleBit, MAST, LN etc. so instead of putting efforts into destroying bitcoin, they could've put their knowledge into something more useful.

If also services such as Coinbase stop saying nonsense like 'our users didn't request SegWit', that would be nice. If they only implement it, It would help the network and also help them save millions of dollars in fees for the long term but they are clearly colluding to bring bitcoin down.

The Bitcoin community is deeply divided
Transactions take too long
fees are way too high
no real end in sight.

Note: This topic is about Peace not War.
Seriously, how to end the "BTC Civil War" before it gets worse?