Major Pros: Faster confirmations, less fees, other businesses can use the extra space for new projects, etc.
Major Cons: Larger Full Node downloads, and more centralization, (because less people will use full node wallets and internet services will restrict connecting to more peers at one time).
Topic: What are the pro and con's about forking bitcoin? (Read 1277 times)
Can anyone explain it to me? I really do not understand all the drama around it.
So if it forks everyone needs to update there wallet?
All coins and price remains? (so what is the problem?)
So if it forks everyone needs to update there wallet?
All coins and price remains? (so what is the problem?)
It could end up a big forking mistake if we dont get it right that for sure. The forking idea may be a good one but its worrying because most people in the bitcoin community haven't had any forking experience.
The biggest con to Bitcoin XT is the fact that Mike Hearn apparently wants to consolidate power over the blockchain via miners, and get the ability to freeze / blacklist bitcoins, as he mentions here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/freezing-bitcoin-addresses-by-regulating-miners-5979
I've been basically 100% Bitcoin for over 2 years now, but if that little proposal becomes reality, I'll be switching back to fiat immediately.
Freezing Bitcoin is theoretical possibly in the current system, if you have all miners on board. That is a fact. No fork needed for that.
You are right. Though when bitcoiners really will go ahead and give "their" bitcoin away to a private company, where the development of the blockchain and the wallet is decided to some private persons and that company, then why the heck should miners switch away later? First they take that offer, so i don't see many will switch later.
It's like a vote. If you chose bitcoin xt then you chose a company that will decide what will happen to the bitcoin wallet and the blockchain.
Hearn and co make so much trouble as if the remaining developers doesn't understand the problem. Of course they do. They only don't take part in that fear advertising campaign for a company bitcoin xt. Bitcoin core will be forked for sure. Its simply needed. No real developer will deny that. It only doesn't have to happen now instantly. We have time to find the best solution. But hearn let it sound like tomorrow bitcoin will die. And we all should give his company the power to rule about our coins.
I won't take part in this. But i fear the community is not so united. I fear a damage to the price of bitcoin. Though maybe bitcoin core gets patched fast and bitcoin xt is losing its momentum.
So, nobody gives anybody any control over future developments, just because he chooses their client once.
I think peligro already mentioned why it still will be a problem. When bitcoiners really would switch to bitcoin xt, knowing all the dangers to their coin, then its unlikely that they will switch again later. I mean they first accepted the downsides, they chose it even because of that. Why should the same bitcoiners do the opposite then? So i think he is right, it would mean a risk to our bitcoin.
And the scenario is real. I did not seldom read that some would wish a centralized ruler, just to take away the trouble of making decisions and the fights. Giving in to that might hurt bitcoin even when they switch back later.
Though we will see.
Is insults really everything so many people on this forum have?
Um... where do you read that in? I would prefer you accuse me only of things that i say actually. I pointed out the risks i see, nothing more, i didnt go around naming others.
By the way... it looks like i was wrong about the private company behind. Im not sure where i read that though i thought there is no reason to not believe it. Since bitcoin xt would have been an altcoin as soon as its forked and practically every altcoin had the issuer interest of making some profit behind.
The biggest con to Bitcoin XT is the fact that Mike Hearn apparently wants to consolidate power over the blockchain via miners, and get the ability to freeze / blacklist bitcoins, as he mentions here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/freezing-bitcoin-addresses-by-regulating-miners-5979
I've been basically 100% Bitcoin for over 2 years now, but if that little proposal becomes reality, I'll be switching back to fiat immediately.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/freezing-bitcoin-addresses-by-regulating-miners-5979
I've been basically 100% Bitcoin for over 2 years now, but if that little proposal becomes reality, I'll be switching back to fiat immediately.
Yes, Hearn and Andresen are trying to do a power grab here that is a serious threat to Bitcoin as we know it. As they have stated more than once, privacy and decentralization are not their primary objective. They want adoption at any cost - even if that means Bitcoin will become effectively a Paypal 2.0.
The reddit crowd and many members here are cheering for a max_blocksize increase. They also want adoption at any cost, because they simply hope for a rapid increase in Bitcoin's value. However such kind of thinking is shortsighted and might ultimately lead to Bitcoin's death by allowing centralized control and surveillance of transactions by a limited number of full nodes.
People should remember the fate of The Bitcoin Foundation, which was founded by Gavin. The objections raised against an excessive max_blocksize increase are fully justified.
I will never support the Hearndresen-fork. But instead of switching to fiat I will stay with Bitcoin Core (bringing more nodes up).
Fork = Evolve and, Not Fork = Devolve
That's simply wrong. Most improvements do not need a hard-fork. A hard-fork without consensus does not signify evolution, it signifies separation. A hard-fork based on egoistic motives and/or false assumptions is devolution.
ya.ya.yo!
But you are assuming they will do a hard fork without consensus, which as far as I know is not the case.
They want the price to go as high as possible as high as possible, but they know that if they fork without consensus what they will get is the contrary.
The biggest con to Bitcoin XT is the fact that Mike Hearn apparently wants to consolidate power over the blockchain via miners, and get the ability to freeze / blacklist bitcoins, as he mentions here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/freezing-bitcoin-addresses-by-regulating-miners-5979
I've been basically 100% Bitcoin for over 2 years now, but if that little proposal becomes reality, I'll be switching back to fiat immediately.
Freezing Bitcoin is theoretical possibly in the current system, if you have all miners on board. That is a fact. No fork needed for that.
You are right. Though when bitcoiners really will go ahead and give "their" bitcoin away to a private company, where the development of the blockchain and the wallet is decided to some private persons and that company, then why the heck should miners switch away later? First they take that offer, so i don't see many will switch later.
It's like a vote. If you chose bitcoin xt then you chose a company that will decide what will happen to the bitcoin wallet and the blockchain.
Hearn and co make so much trouble as if the remaining developers doesn't understand the problem. Of course they do. They only don't take part in that fear advertising campaign for a company bitcoin xt. Bitcoin core will be forked for sure. Its simply needed. No real developer will deny that. It only doesn't have to happen now instantly. We have time to find the best solution. But hearn let it sound like tomorrow bitcoin will die. And we all should give his company the power to rule about our coins.
I won't take part in this. But i fear the community is not so united. I fear a damage to the price of bitcoin. Though maybe bitcoin core gets patched fast and bitcoin xt is losing its momentum.
So, nobody gives anybody any control over future developments, just because he chooses their client once.
I think peligro already mentioned why it still will be a problem. When bitcoiners really would switch to bitcoin xt, knowing all the dangers to their coin, then its unlikely that they will switch again later. I mean they first accepted the downsides, they chose it even because of that. Why should the same bitcoiners do the opposite then? So i think he is right, it would mean a risk to our bitcoin.
And the scenario is real. I did not seldom read that some would wish a centralized ruler, just to take away the trouble of making decisions and the fights. Giving in to that might hurt bitcoin even when they switch back later.
Though we will see.
Is insults really everything so many people on this forum have?
The biggest con to Bitcoin XT is the fact that Mike Hearn apparently wants to consolidate power over the blockchain via miners, and get the ability to freeze / blacklist bitcoins, as he mentions here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/freezing-bitcoin-addresses-by-regulating-miners-5979
I've been basically 100% Bitcoin for over 2 years now, but if that little proposal becomes reality, I'll be switching back to fiat immediately.
Freezing Bitcoin is theoretical possibly in the current system, if you have all miners on board. That is a fact. No fork needed for that.
You are right. Though when bitcoiners really will go ahead and give "their" bitcoin away to a private company, where the development of the blockchain and the wallet is decided to some private persons and that company, then why the heck should miners switch away later? First they take that offer, so i don't see many will switch later.
It's like a vote. If you chose bitcoin xt then you chose a company that will decide what will happen to the bitcoin wallet and the blockchain.
Hearn and co make so much trouble as if the remaining developers doesn't understand the problem. Of course they do. They only don't take part in that fear advertising campaign for a company bitcoin xt. Bitcoin core will be forked for sure. Its simply needed. No real developer will deny that. It only doesn't have to happen now instantly. We have time to find the best solution. But hearn let it sound like tomorrow bitcoin will die. And we all should give his company the power to rule about our coins.
I won't take part in this. But i fear the community is not so united. I fear a damage to the price of bitcoin. Though maybe bitcoin core gets patched fast and bitcoin xt is losing its momentum.
So, nobody gives anybody any control over future developments, just because he chooses their client once.
I think peligro already mentioned why it still will be a problem. When bitcoiners really would switch to bitcoin xt, knowing all the dangers to their coin, then its unlikely that they will switch again later. I mean they first accepted the downsides, they chose it even because of that. Why should the same bitcoiners do the opposite then? So i think he is right, it would mean a risk to our bitcoin.
And the scenario is real. I did not seldom read that some would wish a centralized ruler, just to take away the trouble of making decisions and the fights. Giving in to that might hurt bitcoin even when they switch back later.
Though we will see.
The biggest con to Bitcoin XT is the fact that Mike Hearn apparently wants to consolidate power over the blockchain via miners, and get the ability to freeze / blacklist bitcoins, as he mentions here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/freezing-bitcoin-addresses-by-regulating-miners-5979
I've been basically 100% Bitcoin for over 2 years now, but if that little proposal becomes reality, I'll be switching back to fiat immediately.
Freezing Bitcoin is theoretical possibly in the current system, if you have all miners on board. That is a fact. No fork needed for that.
You are right. Though when bitcoiners really will go ahead and give "their" bitcoin away to a private company, where the development of the blockchain and the wallet is decided to some private persons and that company, then why the heck should miners switch away later? First they take that offer, so i don't see many will switch later.
It's like a vote. If you chose bitcoin xt then you chose a company that will decide what will happen to the bitcoin wallet and the blockchain.
Hearn and co make so much trouble as if the remaining developers doesn't understand the problem. Of course they do. They only don't take part in that fear advertising campaign for a company bitcoin xt. Bitcoin core will be forked for sure. Its simply needed. No real developer will deny that. It only doesn't have to happen now instantly. We have time to find the best solution. But hearn let it sound like tomorrow bitcoin will die. And we all should give his company the power to rule about our coins.
I won't take part in this. But i fear the community is not so united. I fear a damage to the price of bitcoin. Though maybe bitcoin core gets patched fast and bitcoin xt is losing its momentum.
So, nobody gives anybody any control over future developments, just because he chooses their client once.
The biggest con to Bitcoin XT is the fact that Mike Hearn apparently wants to consolidate power over the blockchain via miners, and get the ability to freeze / blacklist bitcoins, as he mentions here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/freezing-bitcoin-addresses-by-regulating-miners-5979
I've been basically 100% Bitcoin for over 2 years now, but if that little proposal becomes reality, I'll be switching back to fiat immediately.
Freezing Bitcoin is theoretical possibly in the current system, if you have all miners on board. That is a fact. No fork needed for that.
You are right. Though when bitcoiners really will go ahead and give "their" bitcoin away to a private company, where the development of the blockchain and the wallet is decided to some private persons and that company, then why the heck should miners switch away later? First they take that offer, so i don't see many will switch later.
It's like a vote. If you chose bitcoin xt then you chose a company that will decide what will happen to the bitcoin wallet and the blockchain.
Hearn and co make so much trouble as if the remaining developers doesn't understand the problem. Of course they do. They only don't take part in that fear advertising campaign for a company bitcoin xt. Bitcoin core will be forked for sure. Its simply needed. No real developer will deny that. It only doesn't have to happen now instantly. We have time to find the best solution. But hearn let it sound like tomorrow bitcoin will die. And we all should give his company the power to rule about our coins.
I won't take part in this. But i fear the community is not so united. I fear a damage to the price of bitcoin. Though maybe bitcoin core gets patched fast and bitcoin xt is losing its momentum.
Forking is an indication of at least some form of proactive management. The ability to alter the affect of bitcoin by adding features such as security, anonymity, better accounting practices, etc etc etc is something that makes it such a captivating monetary entity. I always like to draw comparisons. Imagine fiat before banks, credit cards, loan agencies, etc etc... Bitcoin has a lot of development to go through but there are already loan agencies developing for bitcoin.
Changes to bitcoin via forks are contested vigorously and it's sort of like the Roman empire... just the slightest move in the wrong direction could bring on the demise of bitcoin or could make it the most powerful currency in the world.
Changes to bitcoin via forks are contested vigorously and it's sort of like the Roman empire... just the slightest move in the wrong direction could bring on the demise of bitcoin or could make it the most powerful currency in the world.
The biggest con to Bitcoin XT is the fact that Mike Hearn apparently wants to consolidate power over the blockchain via miners, and get the ability to freeze / blacklist bitcoins, as he mentions here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/freezing-bitcoin-addresses-by-regulating-miners-5979
I've been basically 100% Bitcoin for over 2 years now, but if that little proposal becomes reality, I'll be switching back to fiat immediately.
Freezing Bitcoin is theoretical possibly in the current system, if you have all miners on board. That is a fact. No fork needed for that.
I will never support the Hearndresen-fork. But instead of switching to fiat I will stay with Bitcoin Core (bringing more nodes up).
Time will tell. For example, for all I know they've accrued $500 million in funding, which they're going to use to convince folks like Bitpay, Coinbase, blockchain.info, LBC, and so on to switch over to XT, at which point Bitcoin is in serious trouble.
I love Bitcoin, but under no circumstances will I switch over to XT. If I need to hand over control of my finances to a regulatory body, I would much prefer that be someone such as the government of Canada, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. Under no circumstances would I ever relinquish that control to Mike Hearn and his cohorts.
Check here:https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt
Quote
Bitcoin XT is a patch set on top of Bitcoin Core, with a focus on upgrades to the peer to peer protocol. By running it you can opt in to providing the Bitcoin network with additional services beyond what Bitcoin Core nodes provide.
You are not hand over control of your finance to a regulatory body! The inherent protocol hasn't changed at all, still be decentralized. The current version's XT hasn't changed the blocksize yet and just bases on the existing blockchain, same as bitcoin core! After getting at some extent of concensus, blockchain increase will be implemented. Nothing else will be changed! Otherwise no consensus will get reached! 
I will never support the Hearndresen-fork. But instead of switching to fiat I will stay with Bitcoin Core (bringing more nodes up).
Time will tell. For example, for all I know they've accrued $500 million in funding, which they're going to use to convince folks like Bitpay, Coinbase, blockchain.info, LBC, and so on to switch over to XT, at which point Bitcoin is in serious trouble.
I love Bitcoin, but under no circumstances will I switch over to XT. If I need to hand over control of my finances to a regulatory body, I would much prefer that be someone such as the government of Canada, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. Under no circumstances would I ever relinquish that control to Mike Hearn and his cohorts.
The biggest con to Bitcoin XT is the fact that Mike Hearn apparently wants to consolidate power over the blockchain via miners, and get the ability to freeze / blacklist bitcoins, as he mentions here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/freezing-bitcoin-addresses-by-regulating-miners-5979
I've been basically 100% Bitcoin for over 2 years now, but if that little proposal becomes reality, I'll be switching back to fiat immediately.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/freezing-bitcoin-addresses-by-regulating-miners-5979
I've been basically 100% Bitcoin for over 2 years now, but if that little proposal becomes reality, I'll be switching back to fiat immediately.
Yes, Hearn and Andresen are trying to do a power grab here that is a serious threat to Bitcoin as we know it. As they have stated more than once, privacy and decentralization are not their primary objective. They want adoption at any cost - even if that means Bitcoin will become effectively a Paypal 2.0.
The reddit crowd and many members here are cheering for a max_blocksize increase. They also want adoption at any cost, because they simply hope for a rapid increase in Bitcoin's value. However such kind of thinking is shortsighted and might ultimately lead to Bitcoin's death by allowing centralized control and surveillance of transactions by a limited number of full nodes.
People should remember the fate of The Bitcoin Foundation, which was founded by Gavin. The objections raised against an excessive max_blocksize increase are fully justified.
I will never support the Hearndresen-fork. But instead of switching to fiat I will stay with Bitcoin Core (bringing more nodes up).
Fork = Evolve and, Not Fork = Devolve
That's simply wrong. Most improvements do not need a hard-fork. A hard-fork without consensus does not signify evolution, it signifies separation. A hard-fork based on egoistic motives and/or false assumptions is devolution.
ya.ya.yo!
Fork = Evolve and, Not Fork = Devolve
The software is not self-evolving, until it is, we must continue on our quest to improve the code. The time to become conservative is when this thing gets big, not while Bitcoin is still in the experimental stage.
The software is not self-evolving, until it is, we must continue on our quest to improve the code. The time to become conservative is when this thing gets big, not while Bitcoin is still in the experimental stage.
pro's are that new changes and addons can be added to the bitcoin client,that is about forking software
The biggest con to Bitcoin XT is the fact that Mike Hearn apparently wants to consolidate power over the blockchain via miners, and get the ability to freeze / blacklist bitcoins, as he mentions here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/freezing-bitcoin-addresses-by-regulating-miners-5979
I've been basically 100% Bitcoin for over 2 years now, but if that little proposal becomes reality, I'll be switching back to fiat immediately.
Forking by itself is neutral, it greatly depends on the scenario:
If there's a controversial fork of Bitcoin with - in worst case - close to 50% supporters for both the original and the forked version, both systems will loose in terms of security and value. A general loss of confidence in Bitcoin might be the result.
A non-controversial fork is not a problem - it's simply required to introduce certain updates. Bitcoin might also be forked to start a new side-project, for example a new Altcoin (with a separate Blockchain), which is also not a problem and can be used to test new technology.
ya.ya.yo!
If there's a controversial fork of Bitcoin with - in worst case - close to 50% supporters for both the original and the forked version, both systems will loose in terms of security and value. A general loss of confidence in Bitcoin might be the result.
A non-controversial fork is not a problem - it's simply required to introduce certain updates. Bitcoin might also be forked to start a new side-project, for example a new Altcoin (with a separate Blockchain), which is also not a problem and can be used to test new technology.
ya.ya.yo!
When it finally gets to the point where a decision HAS to be made, Surley this will have a negative impact on the price no?
certainly not if consensus is reached (meaning it doesn't actually fork).
if it does fork, most likely one fork would win fairly quickly over the other
but yes that could be bad for price as it would erode confidence.
then again, if all appears well after the smoke has cleared,
investors (particularly institutional investors) might be actually
more confident, so you never know.
As far as I know the hard fork will not happen unless super consensus (thats 90%) it's reached, meanwhile both clients will exist under the same blockchain.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
When it finally gets to the point where a decision HAS to be made, Surley this will have a negative impact on the price no?
certainly not if consensus is reached (meaning it doesn't actually fork).
if it does fork, most likely one fork would win fairly quickly over the other
but yes that could be bad for price as it would erode confidence.
then again, if all appears well after the smoke has cleared,
investors (particularly institutional investors) might be actually
more confident, so you never know.
When it finally gets to the point where a decision HAS to be made, Surley this will have a negative impact on the price no?
Jump to: