Bitcoin Forum

When you read old threads, you will hear of many soft forks and including a few hard forks that gave birth to Bitcoin Cash , Bitcoin gold, Bitcoin SV. The last one should be BSV in 2018.
What happened differently  that there are no threats or signs of forking?

Bitcoin cash and all other altcoins you mentioned are just some useless coins. The hash rate of Bitcoin cash (which has been the most successful fork of bitcoin) is only 0.4% of hash rate of bitcoin.
We don't need any more shitcoins and if there's any other fork of bitcoin like bch, bsv, etc. most of the people will probably sell them just to get rid of them.

I believe it's because it will not be more beneficial to them, as they can't make money out of it anymore. Just like what happened to Bitcoin Cash and other - where are they now?
But maybe not now, or near future. But what if someone comes again and forks Bitcoin just like Bitcoin Cash and makes hype or claims they they are Satoshi Nakamoto  :D

Yes many people agree this especially those who believe Bitcoin is only real and secure cryptocurrency. You are right that Bitcoin huge lead in hash rate which shows its security makes powerful case against Bitcoin Cash. These shitcoins are are just copies of Bitcoin without same level of trust and network support.
Market has always shown it prefers Bitcoin so it makes sense that any new copies would likely be sold off quickly as history has proven that just copying code is not enough to build same kind of security and trust as Bitcoin.

Bitcoin SV is a fork of bitcoin cash (BCH).

Let see what will happen during this post quantum proposal. But no one should wish for a hard fork. Those coins that forked out of bitcoin are now all not like bitcoin but they are like those shit coins.

Also bitcoin recently has a dominance of 61% while BCH has a dominance of 0.3%.
BCH all-time high is $4350 in 2017 and has not gotten to that price again till now. Its price now is $570 which is almost 8 times less than its all-time high price.

Forks from Bitcoin source code are altcoins or you can call those forked coins more accurately as shit and scam coins. If you don't know how useless those forks are, you can spend your time to read How Many Bitcoin Forks Are There? You will be surprised!!! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5221882)

After reading it, you can change your mind and think like there is no need to have more forks like those shitcoins. Scammers will try to take advantage of any Bitcoin technical protocol upgrade in the future to make more shit forks and scam people who believe in shit fork coins. Be knowledgeable by reading that topic, understanding it, and avoiding future shit fork coins.

After Bcash, most people realized these forks were all just scams and nobody wanted to hold them. Each new fork had diminishing returns and eventually there wasn’t enough of an incentive to create more of them. It was more profitable to launch a new coin on Ethereum. As long as you pretended to have some kind of novel product attached to your token, you could raise millions of dollars in an ICO.

Bitcoin forks had the inconvenience of inheriting BTC’s history with a fairly distributed supply, but with ETH tokens you could just create them out of thin air and allocate most of the supply to the founders and other insiders.

The first second it forked it become another altcoin/shitcoin.

The one thing you should be concerned when forking is community support, even then the forks that gained some popularity are nowhere to be seen right now because they're just a fad.

On top of that, we also got ETF for bitcoin that is such a massive success, if somebody is forking BTC, they know they'd be labeled fake things instantly.

Bitcoin is money that operates based on consensus, all participants in the network voluntarily follow the same rules encoded in the software. It doesn’t rely on leaders, companies, or politics. The rules are the same for everyone and cannot be changed unilaterally. That’s why Bitcoin is often compared to the game of chess.

In chess, everyone knows the rules, how pawns move, what castling means, what checkmate is. These rules are immutable , and that’s exactly why the game makes sense. If someone decides their knight can move like a queen, it’s no longer chess. Similarly, if someone tries to change Bitcoin’s fundamental rules, they’re not changing Bitcoin ,they’re creating something else.This is the essence of hard forks. When a group tries to change the rules (for example, increasing the block size), they can create a new chain , like Bitcoin Cash. Technically, this is a new game, played by new rules. That’s why it’s no longer Bitcoin.That’s why such forks quickly lose value and eventually go to zero, because people don’t trust them and don’t accept them as the real Bitcoin.

It was easier, as I got it, imo, and on ETH, it was more "trendy" back in the day, so to speak, just like now the meta is to create new memes on all the chains there can be ;D

It's because it's not going to stop Bitcoin, we've seen a lot of Bitcoin forks already and most of them just die down a natural death. Some of them might still be existing, but still it didn't capture the investors. So it doesn't make sense as the people behind won't make any money. Perhaps for them it's better to create more meme coins, hype it and then go and take the profit rinse and repeat. Remember that it was born out of those of block size, SegWit, but it was settled already. So that is the main goal of forks before, attempted to 'solved' that kind of problem. But we have like LN today, so the appeal is no longer there. And it's also obvious that Bitcoin is too big too fall, we still got the consensus and so this fork are just going to fall.

It's because people no longer trust with new Bitcoin, they prefer new hype coins.

I saw few projects about Bitcoin few years ago, but no one interested and their coins high likely already dead. But this year I haven't see someone created a Bitcoin fork, scam through Bitcoin fork is no longer a trend anymore.

Because forks are present, when someone decides to do things differently, than the rest of the network. For example: BCH decided to increase the maximum size of the block. So they did, nobody stopped them. But the community simply decided to not follow their chain, so it is now weak, it is worth a fraction of BTC, and they just made an altcoin, because they didn't give anyone a choice: if there would be no replay protection, and if all transactions would be repeated in all networks, then we could have 1:1 peg between BTC, BCH, and anything else. In that case, some transactions would be just "confirmed" faster on alternative chains, and then they would be replicated, and confirmed on BTC later. But back then, some people thought, that hard-forks are good, or that replay protection is good, and you can now see the consequences of their decisions. I guess a lot of users would want to sell all of their BCHs, at the price of BTC now, but it is too late.

It is possible, that we could have quantum-resistant fork, if some people will agree to freeze some coins, and unlock them later, when the true owner will demonstrate a quantum proof. If any quantum proposal will contain any hard-fork, to put any old coins back into circulation, then it would require skipping rules of existing scripts (or rules of previously activated quantum soft-forks, which could burn these coins). And then, we could have some fork, at least in theory. I believe many people will see, that hard-forks are worse than soft-forks, but maybe there will be some people, who will think about unnecessary forking, and introduce some incompatible changes anyway.

But, even if there will be some quantum FUD and disagreement, then still: things are already battle-tested in practice. Then, do what you did during BTC/BCH split: buy the coins you value more, and sell the coins you value less. I believe Proof of Work will solve the rest.

Previously, many people could not survive by claiming to be Satoshi, they could not provide proper proof and it later became ridiculous but now the situation is more difficult for Satoshis so in this situation if someone wants to admit and provide proof then it will be more difficult and difficult for them because the community is now much stronger and much more mature, they know that there will be no shortage of people claiming to be Satoshi in the future to validate the fork and they have also understood that this is an old method of generating hype. I don't think they will make such claims at this time, but if someone wants to generate hype in the future and claim to be Satoshi then personally I will first ask for their photograph for the new Tragi-comedy drama, that would be ridiculous.

Because these things are short lived "mania" that work based on hype. Back in 2017 newbies were pouring into bitcoin at a faster rate than normal and they were being fooled easier to purchase useless garbage like the copycoins such as bcash. Obviously such things that have no utility (since they are just poor copies of a real project) can not survive the long run. When the newbies who had bought them, start losing money as these things get dumped or worse when they die, they gain a valuable experience to not trust these things anymore. That means any new copycoin can attract a decreasing number of "victims" therefore the mania dies off.

If you check the price (an indication of the success of such scams) of these copycoins, you can see that the first one BCH was more successful than the subsequent ones (Bgold, Bsilver, Bclassic, Bcore, BDiamond, ...) which have shorter moment in the sun...

It's because people have understood they can't replicate Bitcoin in any form whatsoever. No matter who is backing it up or what circumstances it is coming from. It was a hype earlier and some clever people tried to market it. But so far everyone is understood that such incidents are not going to replace Bitcoin. So people have stopped doing experiments with Bitcoin and moved to other markets like NFT, memecoins etc.

Thankfully it has stopped after hundreds of forked coins flooded the market.

It’s easy people simply just realized that all this are forks are scam, I think the reason why those devs that actually created the bitcoin forks then and had their way was because bitcoin was still early then and the narrative of bitcoin having flaws was easy to pass then to naive/gullible people, but right now with bitcoin actually more than 15 years in existence and no one has actually been able to prove this narrative about its flaws do we think people will actually get attracted to any fork.

I think anyone actually considering bitcoin folks would seeing that after 19 million coins and tokens have been released there is none which beats the bitcoin as such it will be better to actually go and create some independent altcoin than to create bitcoin forks because this will even woo people easily than the old scam trick of bitcoin folks.

i guess it's because they can't sell anything anymore by creating a new fork of bitcoin. for example, when bitcoin cash was launched they said that it would offer faster transactions, and various other claims to create hype, but unfortunately it was only a moment, and until now bitcoin cash and most other forks it just does not seem to progress anymore. unlike bitcoin which until now continues to grow and remains the choice for many people for investment or payment.

The forks were scam attempts, like art NFTs were, meme are, ordinals, runes and so forth. The creators of these things are the scammers that try to trick the general public out of their money and it often works, otherwise nobody would do it. However, the same scam method can't work forever. They have to keep adapting or the casual people finally start learning. By wrapping the same scam in a different paper each time, you can fool a lot of people into getting scammed again.

Like what we're having every season, those forks were also a trend and hype. Until everyone has seen and recognized that the developers were making it as a quick source of money, they were not tolerated by the community.

And so, the hype and trend from the forks have died and became forgotten because the proliferation of scams have also been there.

IIRC, we almost got a lot of those names fork after fork and almost named after Bitcoin and the universe.

I can also say up such thing too on which if there's something which is new and becomes hype and gain up that interest then it would be creating a series of those events. Just like into those times on where Bitcoin forks are still that making up some noise then here comes those other fork events like do also happened on ETH having that ETC and other those altcoins too. Now that we've seen those forked coins are kissing into the floor when it regards into its price then I do agree into those earlier post that people would be just that simply trying out to get rid of those coins for fast profits and also when it comes into those kind of changes into those main coin that they are forking on but still it ends up on being considered and recognized rather than into those forked coins which do solve out those main problems of that coin they are forking into.
We dont need anymore of these altcoins that keeps on flooding in the market and just like been said that if the hype or trend dies down then expect that there's that coming next into it.

Most of the time on which things turned out that it is that driven with hype and it would be that understandable that whenever it dies down then it would be that a starting up for a new one but so far we've been not able to see something when it comes to trend but of course it would be never known on what comes next. The question is that on how you would be dealing up with things accordingly at the time that you would be able to meet up something that you havent been able to encounter before.? Each trend then it would be that different and it if you wont be that careful then you will be that susceptible into those bad decisions on which it would be that leading up into disaster. Always be considerate into the actions that you are taking because if you wont be that wary and sensible then you are prone into those bad decisions.

Let's say that everyone has learnt their lessons from the old guys who trusted Bitcoin Cash and at the end they realise that bitock  has no copy and no matter how promising it may look there is absolutely no need to risk some few cents into it because at the end it's a regret kind of thing and, so right now we don't have folks because even you told will not let yourself fall victim of it anymore.

People have become smarter and wiser knowing bitcoin to be it's original a d will never have a copy like it, whether BSV, BCH etc.

People are not so dumb anymore in jumping on these bandwagons. Forks are like creating imitations from the original. And as we have seen, btc for example stayed to be the go-to in crypto not those forked coins, in which most of them are forgotten already. So they are just wasting their resources if they will create one. And people are learning their lessons from these forked coins. It may have had attracted interest before because every fork that we had, it really created some frenzy among crypto enthusiasts.

But now, that interest is gone because we have seen over and over, that the price declined after quite some time. When no one is talking anymore about that forked coin. We rarely even hear anymore about bitcoin cash, though they still have market value for now. Even Bitcoin Satoshi Vision - where it is now? Though they are still fetching some value - BSV is currently at $30, but still, I haven't read that much anymore about these forked coins in the crypto news. Also, just remember Bitcoin Gold - hardly mentioned these days.

So it is correct to say that we now have wiser newbies who won't fall for the scam copy coins - pooya87

I also think that another reason is that the cost of creating a random shitcoins is lesser compared to the cost of forking bitcoin.

Actually you're not correct about soft forks. Soft forks are now an "established" way to upgrade Bitcoin, and we will probably see several soft forks, one each couple of years.

The last soft fork was Taproot in 2021, and yes that's already some time ago but was after 2018. ;) There was not much controversy around this SF so there was no "Bitcoin-NoTapRoot" hard fork or so, at least none I'm aware of.

Several soft forks are actually planned, the most important one in the near future would be one einabling covenants (enhancing technologies like Ark, sidechains, BitVM and even Lightning a lot) but there is still no consensus among developers which exact covenant technology (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Covenants_support) to implement (OP_CAT - BIP 347, OP_CTV - BIP 119, and OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK - BIP 348 are probably the most well known ones).

I have a feeling it was 1 guy who forked a bunch of altcoins , put them on the exchanges, made a ton of money and then got out.

Exactly. People look at these useless coins that almost nobody wants or uses and decide against making new forks. What would be the point of adding yet another clone that nobody is going to adopt over the real thing?

Most people are completely bad innovators. They just copy paste something that works and hope for profit.

Real innovation, such like that of Satoshi Nakamoto is extremely rare. And it is not going to come from some copy/paste project.

Forks have a lot of problems and when BCH and BSV were young their networks were getting intertwined and causing users a lot of issues. It led to coins being moved on the wrong chains and software needing massive changes.

People seem to have found easier ways to pay Bitcoin holders dividends. See the Glacier Airdrop.

In a way that's true. People have already gained experience by watching what happened to these types of copycoins. But considering how the adoption is growing, we always have newcomers who don't have that experience. So we can say that the community as a whole doesn't fall for such scams as easily as before.

It is. But it is even cheaper and a lot less work for them to create a token on one of these token creation platforms calling it ICO, DeFi, NFT or whatever else and make similar amount of money by scamming people.

We know that guy and he's also from the forum. And then followed by CSW and both of them fighting that either of their forks were the real Bitcoin. But none of them who's saying the truth. Because Bitcoin is the real Bitcoin and none of their forks are the real one. Although it's no doubt that both of them have made a lot of money because they just forked it and made money out of thin air while keeping the real BTCs that they have been holding.

You are right. I wish there were more forks and the only reason I want more forks is so that I can sell those forked shitcoins to buy more bitcoin.  ;D
We already have thousands of shitcoins so adding few more to it won't make any difference because bitcoin will still stay on the top.
Those forked coins will just allows us to increase our bitcoin stash which is a good thing in my opinion  :P

Better to keep the liquidity going to the right places, imo, because as you said, forks will probably won't live for too long to even become so much so as relevant..

I'm sure the blockchain decentralization authorizes anyone to come up with any Dev in the horizon of cryptograph just like some others which had been mimicking bitcoin with their Dev tech network trying to fork on the bitcoin blockchain. Who even thought bitcoin cash and the rest boomed in the past was going to exit so soon before these days as no one is interested of it anymore. So if by any means a folk tend to develop one of a forking bitcoin derivative coins, I'm sure it'll crash from the bottom faster than we might even think. Bitcoin is okay and Satoshi never had diversed his codebase to create other coins so, every other ones in the surrounding is driven by hype just like every other dumped shitcoins out there.
So further development of the bitcoin forks will be waste of developers resources. Like hosemary may say, we don't need them with their very poor low has rates and when they can't be independent, we don't need to trust them due to their potential vulnerabilities.

That is true and people are also distracted with altcoins already.

No more attention to be put into these forks.I assumed that people already accept current bitcoin as it is, knowing that fork will just be a waste of time that they don't even bother.

Most of forks has been so unpopular recently and nobody seem to care.

They can see risk of altcoins but will more likely see no risks with Bitcoin forks. Scammers can take advantage of technical upgrade and no complete consensus in Bitcoin community to create Bitcoin forks and polish those forks with many good words, future predictions so that they convince many naive people believe that those forks are Bitcoin.

This happened in the past in 2017 with Bitcoin Segwit and will appear again in the future. Experienced people in this market can know how Bitcoin forks are scam but some will fall to scam forks again while newbies will have very high chance of falling to forks and lose money.

You are right, but there could also be a situation where consensus is not reached in the network and there will be disagreement within leading to a soft fork. Am I correct?

There will be time with chance for scammers to abuse fork terms and make their scam forks and shitcoins. With scammers, they don't mind of hard forks or soft forks as they only see them as great opportunities to run their scams and aim at stealing bitcoins from Bitcoin holders who disbelieve in Bitcoin during chaotic times and by any reason believe that scam coins are Bitcoin blockchains with original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto.

Hard forks or soft forks, scammers don't care and people who naively believe in fork coins even don't care about it too.

'Forks' briefly became popular because people thought they found a way to create an altcoin and force exchanges to list it without paying the otherwise required bribes.

Then in the US we had Archer v Coinbase, which established that exchanges not only don't have to list forks they're free to just pocket the forkcoins for themselves if they want.

So with that not only was the main driver for 'forks' as a way to create new shitcoins gone but the second benefit of lots of the issuance being immediately illiquid resulting in an over stated market cap was turned into a liability because it injects a massive number of coins into the hands of exchanges who are quite expert at dumping them.

Soft forks are consensus rules that don't create an incompatibility, they don't result in another currency.  The prior fork coins were just altcoin scams created by copying bitcoin, no change happened in bitcoin to create any of them.  You've got to be careful about accepting narrative framing set up by fraudsters.

This is accurate and is exactly why my exchange states in our FAQ that we do not credit forks.

It isn't us being thieves, it's us avoiding getting shitcoined to death and having to review code for a new fork every 3 days (if it worked, 3 days is probably high).

There are still plenty of forks, just none of them have the marketing budget.  I actually had a request to list one this evening.

Bitcoin goes thru many cycles and each cycles have its own mania.

Back then it was all these fork coins. And I am pretty sure at one point there was over 50 bitcoin forks. I remember Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV, Bitcoin Fast, etc. Other cycles we have ICOs. Like in 2017. And then we had the NFTs. And then we had the memecoins. And then we had all those airdrops.

So as you can see. Each cycle there is some element which get repeated over and over again until the profits are no longer there. Bitcoins fork are just not in these days.

It's a good time to set up a service for assisting people in liquidating forks from addresses that are retired.

That one of our first public methods for people to earn "freebitcoins" on a much larger scale than just little faucets.

It was a good business, no one wants to review and deal with yet another dumb fork.  Here is what our website looked like back then:  https://web.archive.org/web/20170421080441/http://freebitcoins.com/

We harvested Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold, CLAM and maybe one more... Bitcoin Cash did the best obviously.  I think our bigget earner made a few hundred Bitcoins.

It took me forever doing max withdrawals on stupid Poloniex every day.  Royal pain in the ass :P

Yep, I agree.

People do love what shines, and eventually, it stops doing that, and people create something new for that matter, it never really stops.

These forks need to go through a trial a year at least maybe 4 years of testing

No need for Quantum Resistant Bitcoin but it would be great to make people more aware that it's not only a Bitcoin problems it's  a banking problem. Quantum computers can be a problem for a computerized cashless society. Bitcoin is a great effort to get ready to limit the unlimited supply of digital money the banking system creates.

I try to rule it to the fact that, people now know better. Before hand, a lot of people look towards these altcoins to be the next and most of all, when it’s linked or have some ties related to Bitcoin. They try to confer on them some of the rep Bitcoin have belt a short period of its existence. People who can’t differentiate jump at it while those that can and have ideas as to how this works just stay off it. Developers know this now and have shifted their focus elsewhere with memecoins and whatever name they could give it.

Interest in Bitcoin-based forks waned as a result of some exchanges not honoring customers' coins. Some of them just kept the forked coins without listing them for trading. Not to mention, interest has moved away from forks into more speculative crypto assets (such as "meme" coins and NFTs). We were close to getting another fork due to the network congestion caused by Ordinals inscriptions (Bitcoin Knox). But it didn't happen because the community had no problem with Ordinals.

I wouldn't envision another Bitcoin-based fork anytime soon. Most of them fail in the long run, now that many investors consider them direct clones of the original Bitcoin blockchain. Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV, Bitcoin Diamond, Bitcoin Gold, etc. all carry the Bitcoin brand/name. So even if they have a few tweaks here and there, no one will pay attention to them. Miraculously, BCH is the only fork that's among the top 20 coins in market cap. It's worth half a thousand dollars right now ~$550. Only time will tell how long will it stay there. I'd just keep holding BTC alone and forget about the rest.

Yeah, it's intractable-- you're supposed to run who knows what code ... even if you had a very good framework for isolating different coins code (and exchanges mostly don't) there is just an incredible risk of malicious or vulnerable forkcoin code.  If exchanges did regularly accept them there would very quickly be forks with malicious code intended to penetrate exchanges, steal private keys, etc.   Plus very good isolation is expensive.

It's quite easy to make custom signing code that causes the signatures to leak the private keys,  they can even do it in a way that is 'secure' so only the proper attacker can recover them (A 'no one but us' vulnerability, as NSA might call it).

During all the bitcoin fork mania I *rewrote* the signing code for each of the forks, in order to perform signatures with my own code to avoid the difficult problem of reviewing third party code.  It was a pain in the ass.

This is how Big Vern allegedly got hacked with his exchange, Cryptsy.  They didn't jail some new coin of the week, and it pwned them.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdfl/pr/ceo-major-online-cryptocurrency-exchange-company-indicted-defrauding-company-s

Seems like he stole from the wrong folks, it appears, and they got him back, then gave him a taste of the FEDS. lol

Shocked he still hasn't come back to America for air conditioning yet.  He must have a pretty Chinese wife and a few kids or something.

Forks are not popular now because their time has passed. The peak of the popularity of forks was immediately after the appearance of BCH. There were about 50 bitcoin forks in total. Even the forks themselves had forks. I remember it was fun to get a new fork (of course, if the address has bitcoin). To do this, you had to have a wallet like Coinomi or Bitpie (formerly Bither) or install a full fork wallet (which was not convenient for everyone due to the large size of the blockchain). The forks were somewhat similar to Retrodrops, which appeared and became popular a few years after the forks.

By the way, some forks are still alive. For example, BTCZ, which is even now trading on a couple of very small CEX, for example, Cratex. I remember I had some coins left over from this fork, so I sent these coins to the developers of the project to donate for development.

It's an era long gone, and can be only viewed as something worth returning to for nostalgia and how people tried to make something new / profit from the ideas that spike the minds up, so to speak..

Risk of QC is real, although who knows when will it's mature enough to break cryptography we use today. While bank also have this problem, they can switch to QC-resistant cryptography faster than Bitcoin.


In addition, you need to handle your wallet and private key carefully. People had to move their Bitcoin to different address/wallet (before claming forked coins) to prevent their Bitcoin accidentally stolen.


IMO BCH is better example of fork that still alive since it have position 16 on CoinMarketCap. From quick search, BTCZ and other forks have position 1000 or lower which indicates it's barely alive. I don't count BSV since it's BCH fork.

To claim fork coins, private key is required mandatory and with private key, your coins can be moved by anyone access it.

The time of Bitcoin fork coins is many years ago, two market cycles ago but the lesson is valuable and it's applicable for altcoins too. Years ago LoyceV wrote his guide on claiming fork coins.
LoyceV's Bitcoin Fork claiming guide (and service). (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2836875.0)

Move your coins out of a wallet, before using its private keys to claim fork coins.

I don't like fork coins because they are useless, fork coins are mostly useless than shit coins, I was here when they are fresh and new and I thought they will be great just like the coin they are forking from, I was wrong, many of them turned to shit in less that two years and they never recovered.

Ethereum Classic and Bitcoin cash are the only surviving fork coins right now, they rest are over 20 and they all turned to nonsense, Especially those from Bitcoin, at first it was exciting, I thought they would do very well in future, I got obsessed with few of them, this was my biggest mistake, I could have focused more on Bitcoin, instead I started gathering Bitcoin private, unlimited, Bitcoin Satoshi, bitcoin gold, bitcoin diamond.

I ended up dumping all of them in 2021.

Do you know that Bitcoin is a best and strongest cryptocurrency?

Have you ever wondered why scammers try more with creating Bitcoin forks than forks from altcoins?
The main reason is because of Bitcoin strength and attraction, so that if they make Bitcoin forks, it's more easily to catch investors and speculators for spending money in Bitcoin fork coins.

It's much harder to succeed with altcoin forks so they avoid doing this.

Ethereum is a next favorite cryptocurrency for forks as it's a second strongest and successful cryptocurrency. Explanation for this is similar to the one for Bitcoin forks.

I do think that everybody understands that.

It's just that today, everybody who creates such a fork is almost automatically seen as a scam / rug / and so on..

As far as I know the increase or change in the price of Bitcoin, does not automatically trigger hard fork, requires a certain process or reason.
For example: community dissatisfaction with The development of blockchain as happened to the hard Fork in 2017-2018 that we know is like Bitcoin Cash, but the community seems to have been destroyed and lost as in the swallow of Earth.

It seems that at this time the community has trusted Bitcoin, so there is no longer a hard fork and after all Bitcoin is not as popular as it is today, so the community has the opportunity to Creating a new coin to match Bitcoin, after all investors do not want to be dizzy for hard fork, they prefer Bitcoin to be their main goal, not creating something new that is not clear.

These are the old myth that convinced many bitcoiners thinking there coming a new forks that going to be influenced by bitcoin. Fortunately, they are no where to be found with zero use cases.

There is no need of any more fork in the future so the ones done had no impact.

The block size wars settled the big debate.
From 2015–2017, the community fought over whether Bitcoin should scale by bigger blocks (hard fork) or second-layer solutions like Lightning (soft fork). The hard fork side split off into BCH, BSV, etc. That battle exhausted everyone and made it clear Bitcoin Core’s conservative path would win.

A lot of people are pushing agenda with this quantum thing and the funny thing is they are ignorant about it. Quantum description threat doesn't end With Bitcoin and banks alone, anything encrypted right now is going have risk of been decrypted with quantum computers in less than some minutes. Security doors that are programmed that we think are encrypted can be decrypted within some minuted. Anything encrypted file is going to be at threat if they becomes a thing of public.

However, there is already a solution for it. There are currently people doing a research how to used Quantum encryption so they can build something that even quantum computers are going to find impossible to decrypt. I can't imagine central bank of a country lose millions if not billions in the first place. How is the government going to feel if their servers and device are hack and sensitie information becomes public, how do you even explain such to people.

What do you think of a merge mined fork like ixcoin? At least it is connected to the Bitcoin chain to help security. The problem is the forks need to get a use case in society. They have no value just another copycat. Since Bitcoin is used as a more store of value it would be great to have a merge mined coin with more TPS. Bitcoin Cash should have been merge mined to connect it to Bitcoin as it is looked at as digital gold.

Wasn't that a minor problem with bitcoin forks though? All of the big CEXes i know gave the coins of biggest forks to holders. It was just when it become a trend and there was probably a hundred of smaller bitcoin forks, when they didn't list them. And for a good reason. They shouldn't have legitimized any of them by listing them.

And while technically legally they probably were obligated to compensate their customers, i don't think they were even worth enough for people to get mad over lost coins.

It is possible that forkers find it troublesome to maintain the network's hash power, so instead of forking a POW coin, they move to creating tokens of an existing network for cheaper maintenance.  Besides, I think the Bitcoin forking era has already long passed the interest of the developers, as they have witnessed the failure of these forks.
 

And when Bitcoin Cash appeared, many people started thinking about the fact that it could become an alternative to Bitcoin, and maybe even surpass it?
It was a time of uncertainty and at first few people sold their Bitcoin Cash, looking at the reaction of the whole world, but later it became clear that it was just a no-name coin that needed to be exchanged for the original Bitcoin as soon as possible. Because if you call Bitcoin gold, then Bitcoin Cash will be just a fake, a piece of jewelry.

Forking the Bitcoin network is a tried and tested attempt to create a coin to rival
Bitcoin which has proven to be futile. All previous forked coin performances and
acceptance has shown the trust lies with the project with the 100% security performance.

Forking the Bitcoin network now would be seen as a folly!

I don't think anybody who created any of these forkcoins ever did it to actually rival bitcoin even if they advertised it as such (like bcash guys). They are like Chinese rip off products, they aren't making those to rival the original brand and to gain superiority in the market. They are doing it to make some money from anybody who is foolish enough to buy their rip off.

Bitcoin Cash should have been merge mined perhaps.

It was not an attempt to create a rival coin but to scam people who don't know better. Don't confuse competition with malice.

Agreed. Roger Ver is a scammer.

It didn't need to become a thing at all. I'm glad that it is dead.

Don't you think scam is a bit harsh. Like there wasn't an attempt to steal anyone's money or extort money from anyone. Last I check, almost wallets that were holding Bitcoin were eligible for equivalent amount of fork coins like Bitcoin cash and Bsv.

Just like Pooya has said, some Chinese guys were obsessed with making quick money and they do anything to get attention, make the money and moves to the next one. They fork anything with any names and when the coin is listed, it plummet after sometimes, even the Bitcoin cash that is having some relevant left seems to be having dead community, been a while I heard some drama from there. Just like ICO trend back then, everything had there own time and they faded after sometimes.

Lesson learnt from this but do you not see what is happening today, more series of fooling has come to pass, next Bitcoin, next decentralized finance, Bitcoin killer and there is none that has stand the test of time, and I'm very optimistic more is going to come, they just need a new fresh ideas to fool people again.

The word scam is an understatement for what these things were. First let's revisit the definition of the word scam:
Anything that uses the word Bitcoin in its name so all forks are by definition scams. They are trying to deceive people that the projects are like the real Bitcoin to defraud them of their money. It fits the definition of scam perfectly. Just because you forked history of Bitcoin, that does not make your blockchain have any of its feature or relation to Bitcoin.

People tried, people failed, people adapted and now do memes for that reason, not BTC forks, because nobody would go there with their beliefs and funds  :D

There's another reason too, it is about the effort required to scam. To create a meme and have it listed on some DEX you need to do a couple of clicks, much easier and faster than creating a fork. Of course you are also right, a good reason for it is that the scam using the Bitcoin name is old and probably won't see a revival. We had ordinals and runes instead.  :)

Yeah, and it's not on the ear too, at least for me, Ordinals and runes are brought up only when they congest the hell out of everything..

And I am happy for it being that way  ;D

It's not dead yet... Instead of trying to be the next Bitcoin they should try to assist it. The higher Bitcoin goes the better for most altcoins. That's why I propose another name and see kill all copies of the next one who tries. Could call them Neocoins or Subcoins. Not here  to repl s Bitcoin but to help it blossom.

Scams like Bitcoin forks can never assist the real thing, they leech value and create damage. There is no need for additional coins, neither of copies of Bitcoin or of others.

You know what might help is something for the miners can use to cover the mining electrical costs. Can also be used to help lower the carbon footprint. Another coin could help Bitcoins it's just so many coins have been bad for the ecosystem. That's what happens when you let the people decide. This democracy idea is bad a Republic idea maybe better untill society grows the fuck up. Id like to give it another shot and create something that can really assist like batman and robin.

None of what you said is needed or directly related to the topic that we are talking about. Forks and most altcoins have damaged the perception and adoption of Bitcoin and blockchain technology, there is no way to go around this fact.

What you said I agree but the OP might disagree. To answer the question it's because most of these forks have no use case. Copycats usually don't last long in any market.  They are worth nothing, even Bitcoin was worth nothing at the beginning. You have coins coming out worth 1 cent at the start. How? Looks like just a bunch of money grabs by people who don't care about the technology. Some do care it's just when lots of money is involved integrity goes out the window.

That's why you see these ridiculous coin supply amount. Their generating virtual money and pumping it. Premined coins can be a dangerous thing if the wrong dev gets them. What makes it crazier is these exchanges are all in on this crap. That's capitalism at its finest.

I remember that time well. I counted 69 Bitcoin forks before I just gave up. Because of all the blockchain splits, the situation was nicknamed the 'Attack of the Clones'. Today, however, there's no point in cloning cryptocurrencies that way anymore.

First, PoW blockchains aren't as popular as they used to be. Second, it's far cheaper and easier to just launch a memecoin these days

From what I understand the semi-large forked coins like Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV, were given to holders at the time of the snapshot. However the smaller ones that you never heard of like Bitcoin Gold or Micro Bitcoin or whatever, those werent distributed because it was just a hassle and they werent worth much to begin with.

Also keep in mind that each of these forks was a huge strain on space. Every fork was basically the same bitcoin blockchain cloned so it took up hundreds of Gigs just for a forked coin which is worth a few pennies each. And they had to keep all those forks in sync which was tough when the nodes were unrealiable.

People are smarter now they don’t fall for the fork hype anymore. The last half decent fork was bitcoin gold i believe and it hasn’t been doing any good. Unless some big debate like the old blocksize debate happens again, we won’t be seeing any forks with good value. Quantum computers and Jameson Lopp’s proposal to protect bitcoin against qc seems to gather some heat though. We might see something interesting there. Some people might support his proposal and some others might say his idea isn’t the real bitcoin etc and just like that we might have another fork. Real bitcoin and more real bitcoin.

Every holder of Bitcoin could grab their other coins too which is crazyyy like imagine how much Satoshi has in just the shitcoins that's gotta be a lot of dough. I'm sure someone has figured what that bitcoin amount is! I just said bitcoin amount instead of dollar amount  8)

20% more Bitcoin was achievable from the largest dozen or so.  In theory if you managed to nail the high trading point of each of them more would be possible, but there were people who actually achieved a 20% gain.

Most didn't break pruning, so more like 10GB.   You could also in some cases use the same block files for the shared chain with some hacking around the version number handling.

I hated dealing with it, but then I computed the effective $/hr dealing with it was earning and I didn't hate it anymore.

I'm doubtful.  I think they pulled away a good number of idiots and fraudsters that otherwise would have been a greater nuisance in Bitcoin and depleted the funds of some fairly bad actors.  It's true that bitcoin sometimes gets blamed for stupidity in other blockchains but at least you can so "no, that was poocoin, not Bitcoin"-- which is a better situation than the same bullshit having happened in Bitcoin.

Question is did the benefits exceed the harms, I'm not sure.  But I do know that people having the freedom to actualize their beliefs (however stupid they are) is a fundamental good.  The same freedom that lets dumbass altcoins exist is what makes it possible for Bitcoin to exist.  I think we should give them some benefit of doubt.

It could be that the purpose of your blockchain was only to serve as a warning to others. (https://i.pinimg.com/564x/4b/1b/6c/4b1b6cfec2411f644cae1d392922c754.jpg)

I fully agree with the statement and logic.

I definitely pray every day that I'm not that meme. :P

Generally, investors are currently not looking to invest in any altcoin/shitcoin other than Bitcoin, which is why the popularity of forks of Bitcoin and other altcoins is gradually decreasing.
Moreover, if you invest in altcoins, you will not get profit even after holding that investment for a long time, as you can get by investing in Bitcoin. Since if you invest in other coins, you will not get profit even after holding that investment for a long time, but rather the total capital will be exhausted, so why would people make those unnecessary investments? That is why altcoin/shitcoin/memecoin/forks investors lose interest.

I wondered the same thing too a few days ago. I guess that fork era was a period of experiment for the Bitcoin community. Community thought it could solve issues of scalability and transaction speed by all that. Now is a more stable era for Bitcoin. I seriously doubt anyone would want to experiment on that now.

Well, a lot of Bitcoin hodlers made piles of money from that as they were airdropped those tokens. Those who criticized those forks also made money and we didn't hear of any who rejected what they were airdropped 😏. I missed out because I was still a noob who didn't understand much of what was going on then.

Bitcoin XT was the first Bitcoin fork, created in 2014 in the history of Bitcoin but I didn't know about this fork for a long time. The first major and mainstream Bitcoin fork was Bitcoin Cash. You could claim BCH if you had Bitcoins in your wallet. When the BCH fork happened and the price of the coin was 1000$, people realised that by creating forks they would get easy money, so that's why so many forks happened in the old days. ICOs were also very popular back then. Today, these things aren't trendy, today, NFTs and Ordinals make you more money. Everything changes, trends come and go.

Earlier years, Bitcoin had some indifference on matters of scaling and direction, thereby leading to forks such as BCH, BSV, and BTG. With time, the platform grow stronger, and lots of people understood that the division of network reduced the rate of adoption and trust. Now, Bitcoin is having firm consensus, well structured communication medium, with a more obvious priority on stability and safety.

Therefore forks isn't really threatening not to say that there are no disagreements any more, but because the ecosystem now prefers unity to splitting.
More of the energy now is channeling to growing top of Bitcoin instead of tearing it apart.

Yes, bitcoin should definitely be moved to another address and only then receive a fork to the previous, already empty address. You'll laugh, I used some kind of fork service with one of these addresses (I don't remember which one anymore), and since there were no bitcoins at the address, another fork was stolen from me, which I hadn't managed to pick up yet. Well, since then, I haven't trusted such services anymore. Then the hype with forks gradually faded away.

Of course you are right, there is a lot of logic in your words because I directly agree with the point you mentioned. Yes I believe that Bitcoin's huge hash rate makes a strong argument against security caches, but if we look at other currencies, then we can understand that Bitcoin is a secure cryptocurrency. Yes it is certainly true that Bitcoin is preferred over other coins, I think that sitcoins are just following Bitcoin. If sitcoins copy or imitate Bitcoin to gain trust, then even those who believe in Bitcoin will not be interested in investing in those coins other than Bitcoin.
Yes thank you very much for your valuable comments, I have been very clear about this issue from your post, thank you
 

Forks were once the big hype everybody jumped on them like they were the next big thing but people soon realized most of the developer were just in it for quick money add in the scams and the excitement completely died out back then it felt like every other week there was some new bitcoin something popping up but now most of them forgotten.
However back then forks were treated almost like a fashion trend every new one created wave of excitement but after a while people noticed that many of the developers behind them were not building for the long term they were just looking for a quick payday that made the community lose trust.

BCH, BTG BSV and other shit fork occurred because the community was not able to agree on the direction of the protocol, primarily over block size & fairness of mining but most failed due to a lack of support and liquidity. There are 100 forks shit, but 90% dead now

But now we no longer need drama, we have evolved to cooperate. We got the opportunity to upgrade (scaling, privacy & lightning support) without splitting the chains because of the soft forks like SegWit & Taproot. Therefore, it is the reason why threats of hard fork have not been witnessed in the recent past. In other words, the use of forks was that of a chaos-guided experiment, whereas now Bitcoin is advancing intelligently through consensus.

What if Bitcoin cash was merge mined it might have been better.   Ive been trying to think of a idea that can really help. Like a merge mined fork called "Bitbill" the name may change but I like it. Could help miners with electric bills and late comers. The block size may have to be raised 64MB sounds crazy. But I would like the TPS to be more than Bitcoin Cash. I think support is most important but liquidity will come with a great protocol. The branding and marketing can push it into being adopted.

You can look at it as not being an altcoin but a bill instead. A fork that's a sidechain designed to run beside Bitcoin.  I read the Bitcoin whitepaper and it says electronic Cash at the top then he says electronic coins later in the paper. The project has been super successful but it's called bit coins not bit cash. Also you don't mind coins you mine for deposits of gold. Satoshi tried but he needed help to iron these things out. Like the wallet could have been more of a tool marketed as a digger not mining.

People dig for coins like treasure to get rewarded.  Wish I could have been there to help Satoshi make it better. Is it electronic cash or coins? I say coins and the TPS is too little. I guess that's why the fork came and even with that it's still not fast enough. Even though Bitcoin is working it has its issues. Need more of a Republic because that democracy shit ain't gonna work. If it didn't there would be no wrapped, lightning network or strike. I don't know if Satoshi would like all this extra stuff. 

How can you get all this global institution money in without the central threat. You see all these billionaires now buying it up pushing the price higher. You wonder why you Coinbase won't use BNB. I read one guy say that they could roll the chain back. Bitcoin is not allocated enough because stupid people that had extra money were slow to adapt. So much money going around why would they care about Bitcoin. Total control and manipulation. Need to look at the people behind these forks.  They are more capitalists than libertarians. Satoshi was fighting for liberty with this technology. If a group in this forum could cooperate on a fork it could work. Who has a better idea? Because Bitcoin is getting way out of reach for the average person.

What happened differently  that there are no threats or signs of forking?

It seems like you're discussing a specific project or situation where forking or threats might have been expected but didn't occur. Without more context, it's challenging to provide a precise answer.There are some generally factors that might contribute to a situation where threats or signs of forking are absent:

Strong Project Leadership: Effectively leadership can guidelines the project in a direction that satisfies the majority of its contributors and stakeholders, reducing the likelihood of forks.

Inclusive Decision-Making: Involving contributors and stakeholders in the decision-making processing can foster a sense of ownership and reduce dissatisfaction that might lead to forking.

Community Engagement: A strong, engaged community that feels valued and heard is less likely to fracture or fork the project.

merge mining Bitbill to Bitcoin is not particularly new. Merged mining is putting one rig to work on two chains simultaneously & it is a real thing. This was done by Bitcoin & Namecoin shitcoin a long time ago and it is a 0 extra power cost action to provide increased security to smaller chains. The problem is that the altchain shitchain has to be supported with AuxPoW & dev skills to connect it appropriately as it is not just plug n play. Increasing blocksize to 64MB is just lol ridiculous & it would actually decimate decentralization also bring back the scaling nightmare that we have just left behind. so stay with Bitcoin compatible upgrades like Lightning, no need shit fork

You may forget it, but there was time when BCH community and some BCH website (primarily bitcoin.com) intentionally confuse people between BTC and BCH. I remember people bought BCH and assume they bought BTC.

As for BSV, it's already very shady from beginning since the fork led by CSW. He's one of faketoshi who send terror to some BTC and BCH developer/supporter and took many years before COPA eventually bring this matter to UK court law.


Considering BCH community decided to split from BTC network through hard fork, updating it's protocol to support merge mining with BTC sounds like admitting defeat. So it's very unlikely it'll happen.

Bcash is a classic Bitcoin fork scam ever in history while there are hundreds of Bitcoin forks (altcoins) as scam.

There has been 667 forks from bitcoin (altcoins), 3 this month. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2292712.0)
How Many Bitcoin Forks Are There? You will be surprised!!! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5221882.0)

Bitcoin Cash can be considered as a most successful Bitcoin fork but it is scam as all other forks.

This is how the BCash scam team did.
Has Bitcoin.com stopped presenting Bitcoin Cash as the real Bitcoin? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5325215.0)
To newcomers: make sure when you buy bitcoin you are buying bitcoin! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5294976.0)

An archive of that scam site.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190428084027/https://wallet.bitcoin.com/

Or more like an attempt to get "free money". Developers and whales benefitted massively from forks. It was like a "double-spend", but with coins on different blockchain networks. Some exchanges didn't list all of the forks (especially the low-valued ones), marking the end of craze.

Right now, Bitcoin Cash is the only fork that's still afloat. But if it doesn't innovate, it's going to be left behind in the dust. The competition is fierce with many smart contract platforms gaining traction. There are rumors there's going to be a BCH spot ETF, but I doubt institutional investors are going to show interest in it. I'm certain Bitcoin will outlive most of the "shitcoins". Just you wait and see.

 :D
I see so sad i.was not there earlier too many bad coins. I tried to launch a few good ideas but liquidity is lacking. On top of that no use case even though they had different attributes.  Hard to not be come cross as bullshit because you can have all the bells and whistles. Still be a shitcoin hmmm I will keep trying something .

What do you think of these specs?

Block reward: 5 maybe keep at 50 for 210m
Halving: 2,100,000 blocks
Block Time: 60 seconds (1 min)
Retarget: 202 blocks
Block Size: 10MB
Max Supply: 21m
Merge mine


Bitbill

Created to help miners with electric costs and other amenities. Can help create a fast sidechain of value so BTC miners can store their BTC. Use Bitbill and save your BTC to help the value grow to 1 million.  Instead of taking miners away from the original chain Bitbill can help strengthen the security.  

Will need a tutorial for miners to hook up AuxPoW.
My argument is that miners will drop out because the profit margin and the reward will continue to drop. With Bitbill the block time is 10 times shorter so it gives miners more chances to get rewards. It's not a coin like the others claim to be it's a bill like electronic cash. Not mining for coins instead your computer is working for bills.

The scaling was helped with segwit and Taproot but still could use some energy to get to 1 million. If Bitcoin is digital gold then Bitbill is digital cash that is deflationary.

More like a job a wage instead of a reward every 4 years the WAGE decreases with halving but the value should rise. It's like jobs right but the opposite jobs wage go up but the value decreases because of inflation. Nothing new like you said it's just the branding is better Bitcoin is a great technology and brand.  Instead of claiming to be the better version of Bitcoin it's claiming to be the better assistant to the BOSS.

Wish I had 10000 Bitcoin to fund this project I might lose 9000. Id sacrifice it to help get Bitcoin to 1 million. So that 1000 would turn into 1 Billion. You see I would make others richer and still have enough to get it jumping worldwide. Bitcoin grocery store, clothing store, gas station,  restaurants crazy shit like that to promote. Sigh

Right Bitcoin Cash left the door open I agree Bitcoin will probably outlive. Most are just copycats not enough innovation beyond them. I guess Bitcoin Cash had the backing the liquidity to last. Litecoin is still around but it doesn't innovate. Litecoin is marketed as the silver to the gold, Bitcoin Cash is marketed as the faster cash version of Bitcoin. I don't think Bitcoin Cash is fast enough and people don't like the idea of it being the real Bitcoin.

That's a very good question. There aren't many forks these days because first of all, it should have a reason. When you make a fork, what change do you make? You have to make a significant change for the betterment. Besides significant change, you have to gain the support of the people and the developers, which is the hardest job. Your fork needs to gain support, the attention of people, it needs to become popular. How possible is that? Especially when Bitcoin is the number one crypto currency with significantly higher market cap then the other altcoins? Even the 2nd one? Also, how many successful Bitcoin forks do we know? BCH? And look at critics of BCH too. BSV is a scam token ranked at 112th on coinmarketcap.

If you want it - you need a capital and expertise from around any sphere, basically, and people usually don't have such capital (fortunately or not, that's a good question too ;D).

In my opinion, it's not that forks are gone, but that the costs are now relatively too high compared to the potential benefits. It used to be easy—creating a new chain, swapping listings, and everything could be done for free. Today, the Bitcoin ecosystem is much more complex, with currency exchanges and a more robust community. So, it's natural that most developers prefer to build on top of Bitcoin (Lightning, Ordinals, Runes) rather than waste energy creating forks with the potential for greater losses.

Not trying to troll or anything, but if you know someone who'll pay a lot of money to create a Bitcoin fork for them, send them my way? I know anyone can do it, but people with a lot of money tend to pay all that money to someone else who'll do it. If they're looking for fame or anything else other than self-vanity, though, I'm afraid they'll be disappointed.

Forks were seen as trend once upon a time, not anymore, same as NFT's which were seen as trend, and not anymore, same as Play2Earn games, trend, not anymore. I can repeat this a million times. Sometimes things are trending and they get all the attention, and then they end up with losses and not anymore afterwards. This is the only time to focus on it and because of that, we are not going to get any good returns.

You have to realize, crypto is a very trend oriented place aside from the very top, sure bitcoin and ethereum and what not will stay at the top, but outside of top 20 changes all the time, and that is based on trends and whatever is the trend at the time, happens to be the case. This is why the best way to move forward would be ignoring trends after they are done.

That's very true the crypto space moves on trends faster than most industries first it was forks then ICOs, then NFTs, then play2earn and each one had a huge hype cycle before fading out leaving behind mostly losses for late comers the pattern repeats again and again.

Outside of bitcoin ethereum and maybe a handful of strong projects everything else is heavily trend driven people jump in when hype is high and abandon it when attention shifts the top 20 today won’t look the same in 5 years because new trends will come and go.
That’s why chasing hype rarely works by the time the average person hears about a trend it’s usually already too late the smarter play is focusing on solid long term assets and ignoring the noise once the hype cools off in the end only projects with real utility and staying power survive while trends fade away.

I think block size war is a contributing factor. If we account for all the contentious hard forks between 2015 and 2018, we will can trace vast majority to disagreement, particularly the case of block size limit. 


To answer the question "What happened differently" I will simply say the Bitcoin ecosystem matured. The main tensions that caused forks have cooled off, and Bitcoin’s development has shifted toward incremental, backward-compatible upgrades, reducing the threat of contentious splits.

Disagreement is part of manipulation game if you notice what happened with Taproot upgrade in the last market cycle too. It was less severe than Segwit upgrade in 2017 but basically market manipulation game is the same.

If upgrade on Bitcoin protocol can be voted, aggreed easily and in short time, it will not cause any uncertainty in the market and people will not feel either panic or hyped. Market makers know how to trigger unstable emotion and weak psychology of market participants in order to accumulate cheap coins before they boost the price up and take profit in distribution phase.

During manipulation time, there are scammers who take advantage of chaotic time in order to create forks and steal bitcoins from unknowledgeable bitcoin owners.

I think it was even more if you were lucky with the timing, there were many forks at the time and a few of them had fair values like 5-10% of Bitcoin.

Perhaps, and I do agree but I was kinda referring to other people. There were people that fell for this scam, thinking that they are the real Bitcoin, a better Bitcoin or even the future Bitcoin. I can't blame a large amount of population that isn't that proficient with technology and scams. While it is technically their fault, they are victims too of scammer Ver and similar people. Were it not for their kind, they would probably not have made such an error. I don't think that random forks caused as much damage as Bitcoin Cash and SV because they didn't have authorities that promote them heavily.

BSV craze was nuts. Craig wright crashed bitcoin down to like 8k or something crazy like that. I wish I sold my house and capitalized on that as basically everyone wishes lol.  That was just a short time ago too, pretty wild!

Who's to say another contentious fork will appear if Bitcoin gets congested again? A few years ago, the Ordinals hype caused network fees to rise towards "uncomfortable" levels. Many expressed their disagreement with it, raising the possibility of Bitcoin getting "forked" again. Bitcoin Knox could've turned into a new chain, if successful. The lead developer (Luke Dashjr) proposed censoring Ordinals inscriptions on-chain via the node software. Glad it didn't work out, otherwise, the community would've been going against Bitcoin's censorship-resistant ideals.

While the odds of a new fork happening now are slim, anything is possible in the future. Money talks, so everything will depend on how interested investors and the community are to make a fork happen. One would hope, exchanges honor customers' funds on forked chains for "free money". Although, I don't think they're legally obligated to do so. Just my two sats. ;D

Bitcoin blockchain ideallys is no censorship (censorship-resistant) and if the proposal of Luke Dashjr was agreed and supported by Bitcoin community, it turns the blockchain to censor blockchain. Somewhat it is similar to attempts from MARA and F2Pool mining pools to censor Bitcoin transactions years ago and fortunately they failed.

Fifteen OFAC-sanctioned transactions missing from blocks. (https://b10c.me/observations/13-missing-sanctioned-transactions-2024-12/)
Marathon says its mining pool will stop censoring transactions following bitcoin community outcry. (https://www.theblock.co/linked/106865/marathon-ofac-bitcoin-mining-pool-taproot)

Are people still stuck on this thing?!

Preventing abuse of the protocol and not relaying transactions that are exploiting it is not called censorship. If it were then bitcoin would have always been censored because from very early days we introduced standard rules that have been preventing a large number of abusive usage of Bitcoin and are still not relaying a lot of non-standard transactions.

That's true but besides that everything has its time. Sometimes some things are popular, then they get forgotten and then they become popular again. Sometimes absolutely a different thing becomes popular and so on, the cycle continues. NFTs will boom again, ICOs might boom again too.

I completely agree with pooya87 here. It's not a censorship to exploit something that ruins the whole network. We, humans have free will but that doesn't really translate into absolutely free will. You have no right to take someone else's life despite the fact that you have a free will of that. Things don't work that way and it's better to cut out the poison before it reaches the heart, even in a completely free world.

Everyone knows that if they are going to hard fork bitcoin, no one will actually use it. We already have too many shitcoins. 

People are just stupid. Satoshi is no longer important, whoever he is. Bitcoin is not supposed to be a religious cult. Even if somehow satoshi did return, we should ignore him. This was a needed test for Bitcoin, I am glad that we passed but also that it is over. It did more than enough damage.

People are stupid. Ordinals are only a thing because of flaws and abuse. Fixing flaws is not censorship. Fuck Ordinals, fuck Runes and whatever else they invented to scam people..

Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV, and Bitcoin Gold have already proven that while copying Bitcoin’s code is easy, copying its network and the trust built around it is impossible. The market has also given its verdict.

Meanwhile, instead of splitting Bitcoin, builders have turned their focus toward Layer-2 and sidechains. Forking is no longer seen as a solution — it feels more like a distraction.

I like this point of view. I'm working on a sidechain just being cautious.

I found an old article that I was translating into Russian.How Many Bitcoin Forks Are There? You will be surprised!!!
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5221882
I think there is no point in this anymore, because most of the projects have long since died. But no one wants to just spend money.

Bitcoin has been very popular these days and one might expect that this will lead to more people wanting to make a fork bitcoin but why there aren’t many? Maybe because they are focusing on just buying and trading bitcoin itself or maybe since it’s very easy to just make a coin or token nowadays from scratch that’s what they focus on.

The answer is simple: they haven't been required. I'm sure there have been ideas or attempts for new BIPs, but they've only been discussed and haven't reached a consensus on whether these changes are even relevant. Currently, there's an 'interesting' or 'important' change being proposed (call it what you want), which basically deals with, among other topics, the limits of OP_RETURN. So yes, there are changes... it's just that not all of them require a hard fork.

There was a long story with BSV, and Craig Wright was often negative in the media. I can still remember other forks like Bitcoin Diamond and Bitcoin Silver. In the end, it became extreme unbelievable, and also a newcomer understood that something was wrong. The original Bitcoin is the best version of them all. With Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Gold, it was profitable for many, but who wants to own a copy when they can have the original?  ;)

Bitcoin Cash is a most famous Bitcoin forks but with other hundreds of forks, you can not know and remember all of those useless forks.

How Many Bitcoin Forks Are There? You will be surprised!!! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5221882)
Gold, Silver, Diamond are one of many forks but they are the same in two things: their uselessness and unnecessary existence.

If you have bitcoins and hold them, you still have same bitcoins while value increases with years.
If you sell bitcoin for Bitcoin forks, you firstly lose your bitcoin but not only this, over time your portfolio value drops even to zero if you buy a Bitcoin fork which dies after all.

Probably because the hype for shitcoins with the prefix bitcoin has passed. And in general, the hype of 2017 has also passed and now it is not so easy to "lure" newcomers to invest in dubious projects. Since then, the cryptoindustry has changed and the method of "cleaning out the pockets of newcomers", which was effective then, is no longer relevant. You can consider that the cryptoindustry has "cleaned up" from shitcoin projects mimicking bitcoin.

I don't think so and I believe that they will return.

People still fall to Wrapped Bitcoin tokens and take very high risk and in the last four years, there was no fork saga like Segwit in 2017. Recent years did not give scammers opportunity to create Bitcoin forks and scam people like in 2017 and 2018 but I am sure that scammers don't deny any chances to launch their scams. They don't have to spend considerable resources for launching scam projects like Bitcoin forks, so why don't give it a try when a new fork trend appears.

Yes. L2s and sidechains is where the money is. Besides that, many investors shifted their attention into blockchains with smart contract capabilities. So hard forks would be very unpopular. At least, for now. Back in the day, forks were a way for developers and whales to get "free money" with their existing holdings. Exchanges noticed their schemes, and went as far as being "picky" when listing forks within their platforms.

With forks having little support from exchanges, they ultimately faded away into oblivion. Only Bitcoin Cash is around, but it's still widely unpopular. I wouldn't worry about a new fork for a very long time.

Smart contracts are so smart to serve developers and governments as they can use smart contracts for minting massive new tokens and dump those mint-from-thin-air with smart contract tool on the market. Smart contracts can also help governments to seize your altcoins and tokens, for example stable coins, even they are in your non custodial wallets.

Are they smart for users?
My opinion and also answer, No.

PSA: Most Stablecoins Can Be Frozen, Even in Your Own Wallets. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5204055.0)
Stablecoins and Blacklists. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5247581)

It’s a good thing that there haven’t been any forks in a long time. If you know your history, they were the result of long, drawn out civil wars over block size. You might be in luck though, there is currently big splits between people over spam filters on the blockchain. Bitcoin Core vs Bitcoin Knots, I fear there will be another fork.

I don't know it is actually good as scammers tried another way with their exploitation on Taproot with Ordinals and Runes Protocol. These shit tokens on BRC20 actually attracted many unknownledgeable, inexperienced but over greedy people who spent a lot of money for ORDI and RUNEs as well as other shit tokens with hope of x100, x1000. Eventually they lost big with those shit and useless tokens on BRC20.

Scammers won't stop and they can move around to be adaptive with newest trend technically for launching new scam projects with highest chance of successful scams. They no longer create Bitcoin forks as they see this trend gone and they can not succeed with new forks.