Topic: On shitcoins (Bitcoin Cash specifically) - page 2. (Read 369 times)

It doesn't need to be a disagreement developers though, it could be a disagreement between one person with a big enough name; probably a perfect example would be Roger Ver, which is not a developer, but sort of has a developer for BCH anyway, Deadalnix.

Probably not the path of claiming their fork as the "real" bitcoin, but if someone was to fork bitcoin to have their own version, it's very likely for them to claim that their version is the "better" bitcoin, so there's only quite a small difference there vs claiming a fork to be the "real" bitcoin.

I think the idea of bitcoin as the only one cryptocurrency is a utopia. People always have different ideas about the same topic, and it's also applied in bitcoin. Therefore, we cannot avoid forks... However, I don't like how one fork talks shit about other forks. People need to grow up and mind their own business.

Still on the same boat = good!
Split (jump to another boat) = wish you good luck!

At the moment, banks are laughing at us.

Yeah, I see your point

But there's a distinction in the way we see the whole shebang. Try looking at the situation from a different angle. People like Craig Wright have pathologically inflated egos bordering on insane (if not there already), so it was a matter of time until he tried to fork Bitcoin and then proceeded to fork the fork (and will likely continue along this way in the future, more power to him)



To put it differently, he can't but fork, technical reasons being completely irrelevant

On the other hand, people who stayed with the original Bitcoin until now will likely take a different route if there are disagreements between developers. I don't think they will fork Bitcoin and start claiming it is the only genuine one. I hope they will be more like Charlie Lee who created Litecoin, which is basically Bitcoin's copycat tweaked here and there, but who never condemned Bitcoin as being inferior and whatnot

Well definitely. There will still be forks, but the next forks in the future will definitely have a harder time getting to the levels of bitcoin cash in terms of adoption and popularity.

I don't think we're out of sort of "authorities" in the bitcoin space who might potentially plan on a fork in the future. I'm sure you're aware that there are a lot of decently big names in the bitcoin industry. Yes, they're probably going together well right now as they're hand in hand trashing shitcoins on Twitter, but as bitcoin evolves and as more updates will be added, who's to say that there will be no disagreements among them in the future? Might be unlikely, but the chances are non-zero.

This is not how I see it

It is not about believers versus non-believers as Bitcoin is not a cult and its users are not cultists. If Bitcoin (or any other coin, for that matter) offers you utility, then use it by all means, if it doesn't, then so be it as no one is forcing you to use it or just have anything to do with it in the first place. Regarding "serious forks", there shouldn't be any in the coming years, I mean, in the name of Bitcoin, since as I explained in the above post, all forks that could happen already happened. It doesn't mean that there won't forks or Bitcoin forks specifically in the future, but they will be utterly irrelevant and inconsequential

Fair point. It is good when bitcoin community is losing non-believers on the way. That's why I think it is okay that the price went from $20k down to what we have now. Those people who contributed to making it skyrocket were unreliable and had to go. However, when serious forks happen, they can split the community, confuse many of its trusted members that are really trying to support the most accurate bitcoin. While being a way to get tons of money for fork initiators, it can be something serious for others. Splitting the community into pieces is what breaks trust and puts everything in danger now, when the community is still small. Not to mention that  some people denounce bitcoin on purpose to make the price go down, so that they can buy more and get more influence. For all we know, Mr. Wright can be one of them, and then we are in trouble.

Actually, I don't think there'll be any more forks. Well, I don't mean there won't be any, of course, what I mean is that we are not going to see anything like Bitcoin Cash in the future. There are at least two factors why it is so. First of all, people already know that there is only one true Bitcoin as all others are frauds and scams or end up as them. And second, who is going to create these forks among those who have influence and authority in crypto? All those who could (Roger Ver, Craig fucking Wright) have already done so. In other words, those who wanted to leave already left

And good riddance to them

I somewhat agree. As bitcoin is open source, there's always going to be hard forks, and there's going to be A LOT of them. What we're seeing right now is probably just the tip of the iceberg. As humans, we have our own opinions on things, how things should work, and which things are good for bitcoin and which are not(e.g. big blockers vs small blockers); so naturally, there's going to be a lot of disagreements along the road, and probably a lot of more forks whether we like it or not. If a certain fork is proven to be superior to BTC(though I really really doubt it) in every aspect that bitcoin has over all altcoins, then fine people are probably going to move to that one.

they are as a child with candy, as long as the child has her candy, she stops creating problems and focuses on her candy. The problem is that when the candy of the child end, it creates problems again... these guys are the same as child with candy, on the day that their altcoins are a total failure, they again torment bitcoin. this cycle will not end until the day when bitcoin is fast and used as a means of payment

There is a prevailing opinion that Bitcoin's hard forks, Bitcoin Cash being the most notorious among them, are diluting Bitcoin's value and utility, driving away investors and antagonizing regulators, making common people lose piles of money and damaging heavily Bitcoin's image in the public eye

I agree with this view. But as there is no cloud without a silver lining, these forks, despite all their toxicity, are set to have a positive role at the end of the play (their play, obviously). How come? People like Craig Wright are extremely toxic to anything they touch. He was lucky to lay his hands on a shitonne of bitcoins in his early days, at the dawn of crypto, and now, according to his own words, he is going to drive Bitcoin's price into single digits

But it doesn't matter even if he does (which I doubt). What does is the fact that he is no longer part of Bitcoin. And if he tries to weasel his way back after Bitcoin Cash (or what's left of it) finally bites the dust, no one will take him seriously as no one is taking him seriously now. He made his choice and there is no way back for him this time or any other time. The same is fully applicable to other public figures who openly denounced Bitcoin as inferior and worthless

The bottom line is that while all these people may give Bitcoin hard times, it is the price we have to pay for them being no longer part of it. If they remained, they could potentially wreak a lot more damage and a level of destruction which no hard fork will ever be able to make on its own. That's why hard forks, and Bitcoin's hard forks in particular, are good in the long run as they help remove these destructive actors and let them actively destroy themselves if they choose so