Topic: Why hard forks are good for Bitcoin - page 2. (Read 1172 times)
The problem today is that a lot of people are confused between segwits and hard forks . But this time , the Segwit2x ( segregate witness 2x) isn't just an improvement to the block size of an additional 1Mb making the total of each block 2Mb , it is also a hard fork because it won't be adequate with the old blocks of which is consisted the existing blockchain . So technically this will be a totally new altcoin created off this Segwit2x and a brand new blockchain . But to make it effective mines must be okay with it and thus improving their hardware . So miners didn't agree to it and even the original bitcoin team didn't and that's why it got canceled . This segwit2x would have provided lots of improvements to the blockchain making transactions much faster and we hope that the bitcoin core team find a solution as soon as possible .
Is this what happened just this past couple of days that BCH is having a bubble and now that bitcoin is regaining the price, the BCH is slightly getting sunked down? People will be still putting their trust into the coin they used and used to trust crypto currency, the new ones may have a good feature that solved the real bitcoin's short comings, but I guess it is the hit back of it's popularity and demand.
The more miners will mine bitcoin cash lower of cost-effective this process. For all his desire, the miners will not be able to do so and therefore will be forced to go back to mining bitcoin. You don't think that they're so ideological in their anti bitcoin that deliberately will suffer losses? There is nothing they can do about it. Such difficulties can only be carried out in a short period of time for speculation.
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?
It's a possible way to look at forking but value means very different things. For most prominent people in the scene (made prominent by the media I will add) this value is simply put as price, which is their argument for forking, ie. to stop the stifling of price.
But if forking makes it difficult or unpredictable for existing users and merchants to adopt seamlessly, that is a lot of existing value lost as a useful payment tool.
Far sighted value is also inherently more difficult to establish and I believe responsible developers attempt this.
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.
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. 
This is an interesting topic.
Its difficult to answer due to the non-deterministic nature of markets. Its implausible to visit a parallel universe where bitcoin didn't fork to compare what the outcome would be to the current universe.
This could make it a theoretical topic with a few intangibles which could be difficult to quantify.
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 would guess there would be at least two separate sides to this debate. There would be a pro fork and perhaps an anti fork side to things as well.
Its difficult to answer due to the non-deterministic nature of markets. Its implausible to visit a parallel universe where bitcoin didn't fork to compare what the outcome would be to the current universe.
This could make it a theoretical topic with a few intangibles which could be difficult to quantify.
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 would guess there would be at least two separate sides to this debate. There would be a pro fork and perhaps an anti fork side to things as well.
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
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
Another thing that forks do when they fail to produce a competitor to Bitcoin is that it reinforces Bitcoin’s position an a strong cryptocurrency. It continues to build trust that it can stand up to scrutiny and criticism. Bitcoin may not be the best cryptocurrency in many situations but is has a huge advantage in terms of name recognition and a longer track record than other coins.
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
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
According to my research and wikepedia ,and more cryptocurrencies forum,the application of hardforksegwit2x in the word of bitcoin is to segregate the witnesses of upper head and the lower head of the body of the different block channel in order to wider the way of trading exchange,in other terms to avoid the traffic segwit2x implemented of widening the road of every block chanel so that there no more transaction delay.but sad to say its is postponed due to some circumstances.
Hard forks are good for bitcoin only in the situation in with there are certain errors in the blockchain and there is no other way to get rid of them. Other Ways it is like a juice it is mixed with water, to volume ios bigger but the value is lower.
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
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 mean in the long term hard forks will have to be something that occurs because there will always be splits in the direction that bitcoin should take, of course a lot of the time the split will just be pointless but sometimes it will actually have merit, take bitcoin cash for example, there seems to have been a coin created that actually can offer value and that's why both are no co-existing.
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
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.
I'm not sure it's good, it creates confusion for new comers, and this reckless game of "free coins" which could be as bad as "printing money", but hey it's free market, let the best team wins.
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
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
That is good assumption about bitcoins relativity. Why not, bitcoin was firstly emerged as sole coin and then other alt and shit coins came into market hindering bitcoins presence. Well it did not real hindered bitcoin because bitcoin stood like stubborn commodity in the market. Bitcoin will always backfire such actions as you said and will continue its quest of reaching to millions and in coming future to billions of population for sure.
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
Looking from the perspective of miners,its good because the miners supporting BU will leave the scene and bitcoin miners would enjoy mining bitcoins continuosly.There might be a need for hard fork in future because its the only way of making some changesSo 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
Yeah, you got my point correctly
The problem is that the BU folks (both developers and miners supporting them) will likely not leave the Bitcoin scene since they seem to be quite happy where they are now, i.e. in an alleged opposition to Bitcoin while still reaping profits off it. When they are completely on their own with their Bitcoin copycat, they will most certainly have to face the harsh reality. And the reality is that the main exchanges have already stated that they will treat BU as a completely separate coin (read altcoin) along with the old "genuine" Bitcoin. This is not something which they might quite like
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
Looking from the perspective of miners,its good because the miners supporting BU will leave the scene and bitcoin miners would enjoy mining bitcoins continuosly.There might be a need for hard fork in future because its the only way of making some changes. 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
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
There will be always good and bad side of this matter if it really happen which leads to we have btc ànd btu.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 do agree, it maybe good for bitcoin but it takes time. What about miners who proceed all those transaction? I don't get it, whether they will generate block for btc or btu or even both of it? Is that mean, bitcoin fees will increase as too many transaction per second but few miners since they parted
The miners are in fact the least concern here
If a few of them leave (wtf, even if all of them leave), it will only make Bitcoin good since there are over 30 thousand Bitcoin full nodes running currently. Most of them are supporting SegWit (i.e. using a SegWit ready Bitcoin client), and they will be just happy to mine a Bitcoin or two if such an opportunity presents itself. Further, I don't think that miners will be able to mine both coins at the same time since if BU gets some traction, they won't have enough power to mine these coins simultaneously. If it doesn't, then mining it doesn't make any sense altogether since they will be just wasting time and money
Maybe it's good in the long run.
But now...
Many users do not have deep knowledge in this area. I'm among them. When I read the letter from the representatives of the exchanges, I was horrified. It seemed to me that all my savings would simply depreciate. My reaction was predictable - I decided to sell bitcoin. But I resisted.
This suggests that such decisions are frightening for most users. Because of this, bitcoin becomes unstable. This is not the rule. After all, we are striving for stability.
But now...
Many users do not have deep knowledge in this area. I'm among them. When I read the letter from the representatives of the exchanges, I was horrified. It seemed to me that all my savings would simply depreciate. My reaction was predictable - I decided to sell bitcoin. But I resisted.
This suggests that such decisions are frightening for most users. Because of this, bitcoin becomes unstable. This is not the rule. After all, we are striving for stability.
Well the knowledgeable ones are those fighting not the opposite. That means there's something technically wrong somewhere but as to who's telling the truth we don't know until it's tried so why do we waste more time arguing? Let's reach a consensus and try all the possible solutions one after the other for a month each and decide on what to settle on afterwards.
Jump to: