Topic: Why hard forks are good for Bitcoin (Read 1152 times)
It may depends on what every people believe but some recent hardforks had no effects on bitcoin price because it continue to soar reaching many unprecedented all time high. Some people believes that hardforks is an opportunity to prove bitcoin and others view it as a threat. If every hardfork makes bitcoin price soar, it will eventually become the norm and bitcoin holders will ignore it.
I don't agree if you think hardfork is good for bitcoin, contrary hardfork cause many loss especially for the price of any coins become unstable. And tend to decline, many are taking profits but they don't know the risks that there.
Most of the reason why bitcoin is forking is because of the development or the upgrade they are saying. I think we don't need to disagree with that since we people like bitcoin to live long so we really need to support it's development to cope up with other crypto currencies being released. I am not saying that bitcoin will be replaced by it's state today, what I am saying is that if it is not developed it might really be replaced by another crypto currency as the most expensive and most used digital currency. But what I don't like with the hard forks that is happening is the reasons like to make a profitable digital currency that can make their selves billionaires, naming their own bitcoins and saying that it will be replacing bitcoin even if it won't.
It is good for any bitcoin correction but most likely i love it because i am earning in every bitcoin correction.
I'm not against hard forks at all, as long as they don't mislead other investors. If hard forks are legit projects, and they just want to implement their own vision of bitcoin, then I'm ok with it. If they are good, people will probably support them. This helps bitcoin evolve, because it's a safe way of seeing how some changes to the bitcoin protocol would work. I like the idea of a free market, so variety is actually good, to keep the market moving and growing.
What I don't like about hard forks, is when they try to use the bitcoin name for them. Bcash keeps saying they are the real bitcoin, and that is not correct. They decided to fork, so they went their way, and should mark themselves as different coin, and not the real bitcoin. This is true for bcash, and any other future fork.
What I don't like about hard forks, is when they try to use the bitcoin name for them. Bcash keeps saying they are the real bitcoin, and that is not correct. They decided to fork, so they went their way, and should mark themselves as different coin, and not the real bitcoin. This is true for bcash, and any other future fork.
This is just another theory, but it seems to be pretty consistent
So why hard forks are good for Bitcoin in the long run? In short, because they allow to get rid of rogue miners. Yesterday I read a letter signed by major cryptocurrency exchanges, and they declared that they would list Bitcoin forks (if such should emerge) as just any other altcoin out there. Basically, it means that any attempts to hard fork Bitcoin will massively and almost instantaneously backfire on those supporting them. People will naturally stick to the trusted version, and treacherous miners will be wasting their resources on mining a useless and worthless coin. In this way, they will necessarily leave the grand pool of genuine Bitcoin miners, and there will be more consensus between those who will remain in respect to future evolution of Bitcoin. Thus, those pools which support hard forks will voluntarily leave the scene and free space for other miners, likely more friendly toward gradual development of Bitcoin. That's why hard forks will come out as good for Bitcoin in the long haul
Some said that forks can destroy bitcoin then this thread showed that forks will help bitcoin in a long run. Therefore I conclude that forks neither help bitcoin nor destroy bitcoin in a long run. If the forks will become shitcoin then the reputation of bitcoin will loose. On the other hand, those people who entered this fork may leave and they will stake to the original one, bitcoin. Now I know how forks work and what its value in bitcoin and other cryptocurrency. So why hard forks are good for Bitcoin in the long run? In short, because they allow to get rid of rogue miners. Yesterday I read a letter signed by major cryptocurrency exchanges, and they declared that they would list Bitcoin forks (if such should emerge) as just any other altcoin out there. Basically, it means that any attempts to hard fork Bitcoin will massively and almost instantaneously backfire on those supporting them. People will naturally stick to the trusted version, and treacherous miners will be wasting their resources on mining a useless and worthless coin. In this way, they will necessarily leave the grand pool of genuine Bitcoin miners, and there will be more consensus between those who will remain in respect to future evolution of Bitcoin. Thus, those pools which support hard forks will voluntarily leave the scene and free space for other miners, likely more friendly toward gradual development of Bitcoin. That's why hard forks will come out as good for Bitcoin in the long haul
I don't agree if you think hardfork is good for bitcoin, contrary hardfork cause many loss especially for the price of any coins become unstable. And tend to decline, many are taking profits but they don't know the risks that there.
An optimistic outlook on how Bitcoin Blockchain splits may actually help to advance the Cryptocurrency eco-system.
Hardforks can help fixing some mistakes in a blockchain, but they make cryptofans being very nervous as Bitcoin price jumps these days.
because they solve the basic problems, drawbacks in the code and make significant changes! This is also done for large speculations, because the bitcoin core team is associated with mining and pump pools and is forced to reckon with them!
The plugs did not solve the bitcoin problem. The biggest problems - long transactions and a large commission have not yet been resolved. New coins do not arouse the interest of users. Bitcoin remains the most popular
This is just another theory, but it seems to be pretty consistent
So why hard forks are good for Bitcoin in the long run? In short, because they allow to get rid of rogue miners. Yesterday I read a letter signed by major cryptocurrency exchanges, and they declared that they would list Bitcoin forks (if such should emerge) as just any other altcoin out there. Basically, it means that any attempts to hard fork Bitcoin will massively and almost instantaneously backfire on those supporting them. People will naturally stick to the trusted version, and treacherous miners will be wasting their resources on mining a useless and worthless coin. In this way, they will necessarily leave the grand pool of genuine Bitcoin miners, and there will be more consensus between those who will remain in respect to future evolution of Bitcoin. Thus, those pools which support hard forks will voluntarily leave the scene and free space for other miners, likely more friendly toward gradual development of Bitcoin. That's why hard forks will come out as good for Bitcoin in the long haul
For me hard forks are not only good for Bitcoin itself but also for the loyal investors and holders of Bitcoin. There are benefits that hard forks will bring to us just like free coins and another all time high. Hard forks really affects Altcoin investors as hard fork is likely to happen because Altcoins may bleed to death due to massive dump. In short hard forks makes the price to move up. So why hard forks are good for Bitcoin in the long run? In short, because they allow to get rid of rogue miners. Yesterday I read a letter signed by major cryptocurrency exchanges, and they declared that they would list Bitcoin forks (if such should emerge) as just any other altcoin out there. Basically, it means that any attempts to hard fork Bitcoin will massively and almost instantaneously backfire on those supporting them. People will naturally stick to the trusted version, and treacherous miners will be wasting their resources on mining a useless and worthless coin. In this way, they will necessarily leave the grand pool of genuine Bitcoin miners, and there will be more consensus between those who will remain in respect to future evolution of Bitcoin. Thus, those pools which support hard forks will voluntarily leave the scene and free space for other miners, likely more friendly toward gradual development of Bitcoin. That's why hard forks will come out as good for Bitcoin in the long haul
My theory is that there can only be one major coin competing in a certain hashing algorithm.
2 big coins competing for a piece of the SHA256 pie... not gonna happen... the balance must turn somewhere, either in BTC's favor, or BCH's favor (or whatever other competing big SHA256 currency). 2 co-existing big coins fighting for the same pie, I don't see viable.
If im not mistaken, BCH will not take BTC's pie, since the biggest stakeholders support BTC that I know of.
2 big coins competing for a piece of the SHA256 pie... not gonna happen... the balance must turn somewhere, either in BTC's favor, or BCH's favor (or whatever other competing big SHA256 currency). 2 co-existing big coins fighting for the same pie, I don't see viable.
If im not mistaken, BCH will not take BTC's pie, since the biggest stakeholders support BTC that I know of.
But why do you think the algo is so important?
I can as easily claim that two coins sharing the same blockchain technology (technology, mind you) are not possible (let's say not economically viable), and the balance should inevitably turn in favor of just one coin (only one should prevail, yeah). Does it make a lot of sense? I guess, no. So how is that different with an algo that a coin uses under the hood? Personally, I see no connection. You can use the same algo, and get two completely different coins each eating at their own pie
There are many reasons and simple hard wallets help you store bitcoin to avoid all the attacks and it is within your control instead of the others.
because they solve the basic problems, drawbacks in the code and make significant changes! This is also done for large speculations, because the bitcoin core team is associated with mining and pump pools and is forced to reckon with them!
My theory is that there can only be one major coin competing in a certain hashing algorithm.
2 big coins competing for a piece of the SHA256 pie... not gonna happen... the balance must turn somewhere, either in BTC's favor, or BCH's favor (or whatever other competing big SHA256 currency). 2 co-existing big coins fighting for the same pie, I don't see viable.
If im not mistaken, BCH will not take BTC's pie, since the biggest stakeholders support BTC that I know of.
2 big coins competing for a piece of the SHA256 pie... not gonna happen... the balance must turn somewhere, either in BTC's favor, or BCH's favor (or whatever other competing big SHA256 currency). 2 co-existing big coins fighting for the same pie, I don't see viable.
If im not mistaken, BCH will not take BTC's pie, since the biggest stakeholders support BTC that I know of.
People will naturally stick to the trusted version, and treacherous miners will be wasting their resources on mining a useless and worthless coin.
I had the same thoughts and I'm sure that you are generaly right. Imho people will always rather stick to the trusted Bitcoin then spontaniously changing it to any other shitcoin. But the problem is that the latest issues were not caused by people. It was planned a long time before it happened and have nothing in common with the free market.That is happens this time dude. Some large mining pools move towards to the BCH instead of keep supporting bitcoin and sticking with the short term bump coin. I do know still those people are experienced in that. Why they goes to take these kind of decisions.
If you are have plan to hold atleast 6 months or long terms. Either both of these bitcoin will be option invest your fund.
When segwit2x hard fork we see the increasing of blocks last time in the time of August 1st. Since failed this time. We should keep support it.
Maybe the good thing that forks are doing to Bitcoin is that every time there is an upcoming fork bitcoin's price are always going high because people wants to get a huge amount of the token from the fork.
Forks are good for bitcoin for it elevate the standards and see how the community reacts with certain updates and improvements. Like the Segwit2x most of the miners and the community doesn't support that's why it is cancelled. Also, forks are indication of development.
The answer may revolve around a basic question of: "would bitcoin be worth more if there had never been a fork". And "if the answer to that is: yes, then would that added value be worth more than whatever difficult to quantify positives which could arise as a result of forks"
I think it is in fact more complicated than that
The answer to your question (i.e. whether Bitcoin would be worth more or less without a hard fork) would not be definitive either. For example, the price might be higher without a hard fork, but what if some necessary changes or improvements wouldn't be done, and Bitcoin would eventually kick the bucket due to lack of required changes? On the other hand, with the hard fork eating away at some Bitcoin value initially, it might in fact prove very healthy for Bitcoin overall in the long run, and its price, which could fall first, would make new highs due to improvements made and thanks to the hard fork?
People will naturally stick to the trusted version, and treacherous miners will be wasting their resources on mining a useless and worthless coin.
I had the same thoughts and I'm sure that you are generaly right. Imho people will always rather stick to the trusted Bitcoin then spontaniously changing it to any other shitcoin. But the problem is that the latest issues were not caused by people. It was planned a long time before it happened and have nothing in common with the free market.That is happens this time dude. Some large mining pools move towards to the BCH instead of keep supporting bitcoin and sticking with the short term bump coin. I do know still those people are experienced in that. Why they goes to take these kind of decisions.
If you are have plan to hold atleast 6 months or long terms. Either both of these bitcoin will be option invest your fund.
When segwit2x hard fork we see the increasing of blocks last time in the time of August 1st. Since failed this time. We should keep support it.
This is for increasing the blocksize parameter. Volume of Bitcoin users rapidly increasing that is why it is getting very hard to transact or mine Bitcoin. If the blocksize will be increase ,it may double the volume of transactions to be handled in the same time of span. This is definitely very advantageous to us. Everything has to be appropriately maintain for the reliability of the network.
I don't see them as a good thing if the resulting fork shares the same hashing algorithm, because miners will always act selfishly seeking profit, and a decrease on hashrate because some miners decide to mine some pumped shitcoin derived from a fork is not good news, but this is part of bitcoin and in the long term the market should correct this.
Forks like Bitcoin Gold pose no risk at all.
Forks like Bitcoin Gold pose no risk at all.
Long period has elapsed since this thread was created
Nevertheless, I still stick to my guns and think that hard forks are kind of required catharsis or purge of sorts which helps Bitcoin to evolve. For example, now miners are relentlessly switching their hashrate between Bitcoin Cash and just Bitcoin which clearly shows how corrupt, inefficient and ultimately detrimental the current system is. Is this a good development? I guess yes, in the long run, since before solving a problem, you should first understand it or even see that it exists at all. You could indeed turn a blind eye to it but it certainly won't go away on its own. It could only get worse over time
Miners moving back and forth between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash isn't over yet, it is going to be cyclic process, but most importantly the good thing that is going to come out of this is a much needed solidarity in the Bitcoin mining space. Recently, when BCH surpassed Bitcoins hashrate, Slush Pool temporarily became the biggest mining pool with 20.8% and it is also worth nothing that hashrate of Slush Pool has increased around 50% since October. So while purely profit-driven miners are leaving the bitcoin mining space open for competition, it is gradually getting filled up with miners who prefer Bitcoin stability over wasting their resources on an altcoin for short-term profits.
I see your point but there are a few reservations
First of all, miners which are mining Bitcoin Cash are not wasting their resources for short-term profits as you claim. They sell the coins they have mined, and they receive the same dollars (or whatever) as with selling the regular Bitcoin. Further, since mining Bitcoin Cash is more profitable, they in fact earn more than they would have earned with Bitcoin if they had continued to mine it. The bottom line is that they turn out more powerful at the end of the day (read gain more resources) than those who didn't switch and chose not to jump at the opportunity presented
Jump to: