Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 16008. (Read 26707826 times)

This is correct. That's why I said it's unfortunate that it exists, but it does, by design. Open Source is a good thing, probably the only method for achieving something as grand and revolutionary as Bitcoin, but it has its side-effects, which, combined with ego and greed, create this cancer. It remains to be seen how malignant it will be.

Kraken is intended for HODLers. Impossible to trade during big swings as they are unable to serve more than about a dozen traders

well they certainly fucked me

I would argue that large mining pools are centralised on bitcoin just as in bitcoin cash.

It is also  a natural effect of bitcoin being Open Source software which is huge part of the reason it is so trusted in the first place. But I agree it can be used as a way to spread FUD and attack the limited coins ideal.

Something bad is happening to Kraken! Not working for months! Are they cooking an exit scam?

I'm sorry but.... if you can't see that having a 8MB block size immediately created 98% BCH mining centralization (thus killing Satoshi's original vision of a decentralized mining ecosystem), then you are beyond help. Lowering transaction fees will be solved in a different way.



"He who sacrifices freedom [decentralization] for securitytemporarily lower transaction fees deserves neither."

It's not about value, but about disruption and loss of credibility. A common, non-technical user wanting to sign up would have to choose between 400 different FB pages to register, and he would then be able to login only to the one single version he registered, whereas his friends who were long-time FB users would have access to all of them! They would post messages that can potentially be seen by the new user, but his replies won't reach them...

It's just an ugly mess for the newbie and the interested but non-technical investor, who will be scared away. The name "Bitcoin" should map to one codebase, one blockchain, one coin. I believe that all those forks are not intended to help Bitcoin, but to cause havoc and disruption for motives characterized by ego and greed. It's a cancer and it's unfortunate that it exists.

chortle

Its a good point the winning side of the fork is the one which gets the bitcoin brand and the whole rest of the shebang along with it. This seems to be decided in large part by large exchanges declaring which one they will support and which one will get the btc ticker symbol. But it also had to be convincing that the choice was the correct one. The rest of the sheep follow into the fold without any dissent just happy to still have 'bitcoin'.  
 
I would argue that it was clear cut that bitcoin cash is the closest living fork to Satoshi's original intent. However it failed (or didn't even try) to win the brand and therefore lost the ecosystem along with it.  The core developers and community has decided Satoshi's vision is no longer appropriate for bitcoin. This kind of makes me sad maybe out of a sense of nostalgia remembering the original promise of bitcoin before the scaling shit fight took over. But then again something had to yield bitcoin was hitting some hard limits.

My own way of navigating these forks is to retain any 'bitcoin' flavours that seem like have real promise and dump those that don't. For me bitcoin cash has real promise and offers the tantilising prospect of Satoshi's vision being given a chance in the free market. Bitcoin gold I will dump. B2X I don't know yet, I will wait with popcorn ready to see how it unfolds.

we get free coins after forks. they are aidrop for holding bitcoin. we can get 10% of value from the bitcoin price.

When it forks the value of the other will go down while the new one takes a bit away from it and then when you put it back into BTC then BTC will be back where it was before and the other coin goes down.  That's just my impression

We are about to find out 

A return for whom? Anyone can create unlimited amounts of shitcoins, whether they are forks of Bitcoin or completely unrelated altcoins, forks of altcoins, ico tokens, complete ponzi tokens, etc.

So these Bitcoin forks are not being created for profit. They are being created for FUD value.

Good analogy. Basically what we have here is the all too human flaw : if I can 't have the toy, I will destroy it. For children we accept such behaviour, it is their learning process. From adults, it is pscychotic- pathologic. Like Napoleon, Hitler and so many others... . And utterly destructive for the others, befor they finally destroy themselves.

There may or may not be problems in the BTC eco-system that need to be adressed, just like in any system. But trying to enforce a change that pretends to be solution to a problem as a smokescreen for a powergrab inevitably brings trouble to all participants in the system.

How to handle? Probably negating is the best option. If they see that there is no fear, they might back off. (wait for a better opportunity).

There unquestionably is a finite limit on how long forks can produce a return. I don't think we're anywhere near tapping it yet. They tap into stupidity, short sightedness and greed. Crypto will never run short of any of those resources.

And how much value would this have to you/them if there were 40 separate forks? 400 forks?

Loving that analogy Torque. I'd like to see what people have to shoot this theory down.

Yes, but what if all those billions of users could just login to FB 2.0 using their legacy FB credentials? Wouldn't that be tempting? Wouldn't you do it, just to try the new system?

My problem with all this is that we are not talking about a new, incompatible altcoin that is based on the original code, but about a fork which gives the legacy chain's coin holders the right (or even the unintentional possibility) to use the new chain branch.

Honestly, some of you guys talking about forks having immediate value or being immediate "competition" are just not getting it.

Let's say that the entirety of Facebook's code base was completely open source, and anyone could fork it at any time and create an FB 2.0 with a click of the mouse. So someone does it, claiming that they can make it faster, better, whatever. Let's even say that any holders of the original Facebook stock would get an equal stock 'dividend' of like 10:1 for the new site.

That does not auto-magically give this new FB 2.0 any value at all. Period. There is a whole entire financial ecosystem that goes along with the original Facebook, including the founders, devs, employees, investors, stock holders, stock exchanges, supporting sites, corporate sites, merchants, marketers, ad agencies, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. This ecosystem was built up over a decade or more. Not to mention all the 2 billion users of "the ONE TRUE Facebook" that are not at all inclined to switch to FB 2.0. The are happy and content with continuing to use the original.