I think fork is a decent name, as the history of the blockchain is the same up to the timepoint, when the chain gets forked, and two chains proceed. The words parallel chains would only be valid up to the forking time point, after that the original chain and the fork will behave differently, hence, the term "parallel" is not the perfect fit.
Topic: Isn't it time we called them parallel chains and not forks? (Read 135 times)
A rope? very outrageous.
You forgot to mention that most forks that we are seeing nowadays are just created to grab money and a fast rich scheme for the developers, they just keep 10% of the project and they now have a lot of money for themselves.
Anyway, forgive me for talking about this, it is just that i wanted to express it here, lol.
All the forks should be really punished, i dont know why a lot of people are still buying them on exchangers, like bitcoin cash, bitcoin gold, bitcoin DIAMOND.. came on, this was just a crap just like the one called super bitcoin was..
You forgot to mention that most forks that we are seeing nowadays are just created to grab money and a fast rich scheme for the developers, they just keep 10% of the project and they now have a lot of money for themselves.
Anyway, forgive me for talking about this, it is just that i wanted to express it here, lol.
I'm waiting for someone to invent a "rope". You take the existing blockchain, and weave in the new additions that have compatible transactions. This wouldn't be a way to avoid exchanges, as it would be a completely new coin.
All the forks should be really punished, i dont know why a lot of people are still buying them on exchangers, like bitcoin cash, bitcoin gold, bitcoin DIAMOND.. came on, this was just a crap just like the one called super bitcoin was..
It seems that the world and his brother is taking the blockchain and cutting it at a specified height, and they they splice anewly created chain on the end of it. This isn't a fork, but is a parallel chain with a divergence. Calling it a fork just makes it sound as if the Bitcoin blockchain is under attack.
I'm waiting for someone to invent a "rope". You take the existing blockchain, and weave in the new additions that have compatible transactions. This wouldn't be a way to avoid exchanges, as it would be a completely new coin.
I'm waiting for someone to invent a "rope". You take the existing blockchain, and weave in the new additions that have compatible transactions. This wouldn't be a way to avoid exchanges, as it would be a completely new coin.
It's a fork because there's a fork in the direction bitcoin will take in the future, I guess a parallel chain would also be a good way to describe it. Your 'rope' sounds fairly similar to a fork anyway, once they fork those coins can add new additions.
Fork is correct. A fork is simply when someone uses the code from a project (in these cases, the Bitcoin Core client) and begins separate development on it.
The fact that these are forks does not say anything about their quality, and a fork that uses a completely different name would still be a fork nonetheless.
You can call them "parallel chains" if you want, but I really don't see the point.
That is what it should be called, most coins that are cloning the code is trying to make money so they can purchase Bitcoins. The fact that these are forks does not say anything about their quality, and a fork that uses a completely different name would still be a fork nonetheless.
You can call them "parallel chains" if you want, but I really don't see the point.
Fork is correct. A fork is simply when someone uses the code from a project (in these cases, the Bitcoin Core client) and begins separate development on it.
The fact that these are forks does not say anything about their quality, and a fork that uses a completely different name would still be a fork nonetheless.
You can call them "parallel chains" if you want, but I really don't see the point.
The fact that these are forks does not say anything about their quality, and a fork that uses a completely different name would still be a fork nonetheless.
You can call them "parallel chains" if you want, but I really don't see the point.
People tend to choose the shortest name and fork seems to be an established name already. You're right, they are parallel chains, but the name is just too long and annoying to use. I like to call BCH BCC because it rolls of the tongue better and i feel the same way about forks.
People who fork BTC see it as a way to make quick money. They are using bitcoin in the name like an ad. Like that famous friend that you can hide behind to sneak into parties. It's about time people started to ignore forked shitcoins and not giving them attention they need to survive.
People who fork BTC see it as a way to make quick money. They are using bitcoin in the name like an ad. Like that famous friend that you can hide behind to sneak into parties. It's about time people started to ignore forked shitcoins and not giving them attention they need to survive.
It seems that the world and his brother is taking the blockchain and cutting it at a specified height, and they they splice anewly created chain on the end of it. This isn't a fork, but is a parallel chain with a divergence. Calling it a fork just makes it sound as if the Bitcoin blockchain is under attack.
I'm waiting for someone to invent a "rope". You take the existing blockchain, and weave in the new additions that have compatible transactions. This wouldn't be a way to avoid exchanges, as it would be a completely new coin.
I'm waiting for someone to invent a "rope". You take the existing blockchain, and weave in the new additions that have compatible transactions. This wouldn't be a way to avoid exchanges, as it would be a completely new coin.
Jump to: