Bitcoin Forum

Easy question for everyone.
Do you want hard fork?

Personally I dont want any hard forks. Bitcoin is Bitcoin and it should be like this. I don`t want any changes. Growing fee is ok for me because it is still so cheap if you think about how big amounts of money you can send. For sure I don`t want any BU. It is stupid. People don`t know what to do now. We should finish this negotiate and leave it as it is.

The only possible change can be to connect with SegWit and everyone will be happy ;)

No, but I think we have reached a point that decision need to be made it may be painful initially but the long term gain is huge. Another thing is that it will push some people out of the space and there will be peace in the space. But I also think the Bitcoin core team have ulterior motive with this SegWit thing

I want solution for network congestion and increase in block size to include more transaction per block but i don't like to see split of bitcoin network like ETH.

Exactly, me same. So, we have just one choice to make segwit and it will be the best way i feel.
For now nobody want Bitcoin Unlimited and I am so happy about it.

No but if it happens it happens. It's not going to be the end of the world. I think the FUD is the biggest problem because bitcoin newbies don't understand what a fork is so they abandon ship. In the short term (because I need to spend some bitcoins) that's what I'm worried about is price but other than that the protocol will still be the same on one chain. Maybe both will continue, maybe one will die. Who knows. Doesn't matter cuz you'll own both unless you're a diehard for 1 side of the fork and you sell everything from one side for the other.

i have to admit that i would like to see what happens after a hard fork. thats why i would vote yes. otherwise it could end in a disaster. but we won't know if there is no hard fork. and it has to be done something. thats for sure.

If there will be no hard fork, nothing bad happen. Just fees for sending bitcoins will be higher and higher but it is not end of bitcoin :) For me better this way than making new currency and thinking it will be new bitcoin lol. Bitcoin is just one and always will be just one. The best way if we want to change somethng run segwit to make sizeblock 2mb and it will be enough believe me ;)

I wish BU would fork off. Bitcoin needs to be fleet of foot, not a lumbering elephant with massive blocksizes.

I only want Bitcoin. Having two coins with the same name is kind of confusing... Bitcoin Unlimited must be called by a different name.
So basically my answer is NO, i dont want hardfork.

Yes,most of us dont need hard fork.Its not good for bitcoin progress.Some may support BU as they can get some additional amount of free coins.But its not about our temporary profits.Its about progress of bitcoin.Its not acceptable to support hard fork just for some less transaction fees and some free BU coins.

Sure every who have brain dont want this hardfork. Satoshi didnt create bitcoin to make any hardforks. Many people bought millions dollars in BTC and forget about them for long time or they hide it somewhere. If they will lose that money because of sick hard forks , then bitcoin will lost their faith. NO HARD FORKS! NO CHANGES! WE DONT NEED IT!

And the most important who is behing BU? Maybe US goverment who want to close bitcoin market?! Who knows. We dont need any changes. For me i prefer to pay higher fees for sending money than hardforking anything. I dont know for who exactly is it problem right now? Miners are happy because they get more money for mining from fees. Users should be also happy. If you make $1 fees your transaction is almost instant. $1 fee for few milliondollars payment? Bitcoin doesn`t need to be use for small once but for big ones it is the cheapest and fastest and more anonymouse way on the world!

That's just it will lead to the fact that the price of Bitcoin for some time will be unstable. And I would very much did not want to. I'm against  hard forks

If no decision will be made bitcoin will die out. Simply because every new cryptocurrency which is not a scam is better than Bitcoin. First blockchain just could not be perfect, now its literally a waste.

4 transactions per sec is just ridiculous. You can wait up to 24h for transaction + you have to pay a lot of it. If you think thats ok I dont get your point.

For example, Dash, Monero or NEM are centuries ahead of Bitcoin when it comes to technology, and you cant argue with that. BTCBTC

Bitcoin never will die.
It is first cryptocurency and one trust cryptocurency. Nobody can`t control it. It is not private made by group of developers. Nobody know who did it. Nobody can control it.
That is why it is best coin. No goverment can`t do that. No people can`t do that. It is the most popular and always will be.

Altcoins are ok, for me they are to lose or earn money.If u want u can invest in them but there will be always just one the most popular coin - BITCOIN!
For now like i said $1 is enough fee to get money in few minutes. Dont need wait for 24h. Even if someone will have to it is anonymous, very cheap for big amounts. Never any coin will not be better and say whatever u want. People know it.

I am suprised who decide to talk about Bitcoin Unlimited?! I see nobody votes for BU so who were proposing this shit?! People are scary because dont know what is going on. Who made this panic first?! I can see noone want this shit BU.

Ok so while you said that nobody know who made Bitcoin(XD), I know that you already dont know what you are talking about. You know nothing about any altcoin, if you say that thers is no better coin than Bitcoin.

1$ fee for transactions in few minutes.. ok..  Dash is much less, I dont know the exact.   But NEM is 1 penny fee + max 60 secs of transaction.

Just give me 1 point why is Bitcoin the best.  Cuz all your argument is: BITCOIN IS THE BEST BEACAUSE IT WAS FIRST AND I LIKE IT!!1 OTHER COINS ARE BETTER BUT I WONT EVEN LOOK AT THEM. BTCarmy!1!

You can't be more pathetic. You just can't. Open your eyes.

For the sake of BTC and to protect what I have invested, I'm totally opposed to a hard fork. BTC is quite famous these days. A hard fork would bring a lot of headlines and terrible PR for months.

BTC is just an e-currency and as others before, it will die and another one will arise :)

No, i think hardfork is  bad for bitcoin, I afraid after the hardfork bitcoin will collapsed, many people will disappointed because there are so many investor invest in bitcoin and with hard fork it will affeced their wealth and investment

That is the point. We can`t have hardfork. If hardfork will happen like some people said other altcoin can be much better. But until bitcoin will not get hardfork it can be still as popular as it was. Hardfork will damage this coin :(

Those who trusted Bitcoin now don't know if the price will fall a lot and if they will lose their invested money. Trust and reputation cost a lot and now maybe everything can be over just because this BU being introduced at all costs. We can just wait and see what happens.

The poll is not valid, since Segwit is not a hardfork, it would require a softfork. Personally, I am fine with Core as it currently is, but to help prevent future fractures in the community, Segwit with a block size increase and eventual implementation of the Lightning Network would probably be best.

I also do not want any hard forks.
Segwit is the way to go. It takes time.
 
Bitcoin is complicated. It's worth $20B. I honestly prefer a team of people who takes time to do things carefully and make sure everything rolls out as it was supposed to.
This issue should be addressed, it's a brake to a wider adoption. But I'd go with the safer way.

BU seems rushed. It feels like a hijack of Bitcoin. With it, only a few miners will decide which transaction goes through or not.
BU, get the fork out !   

This hardfork is really annoying. We don't want something to change about bitcoin, and we don't need this new coin called BTU coin, if I'm not mistaken. This hardfork really affects the price of bitcoin right now, we are stocked in $1000, and it is taking too long to fluctuate in $1500, because it is the next target price, and because of this, I can't convert some of my bitcoin in fiat because of its price is really low.

But still, I'm going to wait until this Hardfork thingy ends, because I know this is just for temporary. It will not going to happen, because nobody wants this HARDFORK nonsense thing.

As much as possible I do not want hardfork because of the possibility of chain split.  But if it is essential and really needed why not.  We cannot avoid hardfork especially when developer need to upgrade the technology behind bitcoin.

A poll with more specific, and real, options

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1831433.0

this is what i wanted to say too.

---

and why does everyone speaks as if a fork is about to happen. well let me break your bubbles, it is not going to happen. it is the same 1 pool that switched and it is the same percentage hashrate and it will continue being the same hashrate %
and their number of nodes is not going to go any higher either.

I have voted for segwit and actually segwit is not the hardfork. Bitcoin unlimited will lead to a split of network which was already proven to have negative impact on every crypto that have gone through hard fork.

A Hard fork is never a good thing, because it creates confusion and it divides the community. You will always have a losing side and they are usually butt hurt and leave the scene as soon as their side has shown the white flag. Most of these people have no idea what the fight is all about and they join in for the wrong reasons.

Whatever we do, should be in the best interest of Bitcoin and not where you could make the most profits. < Bad Mining cartels have infiltrated Bitcoin and they are getting stronger by the day > ^grrrrrrrrrr^

I think, We are only one a BTC, so I don't like hardfork   ;D ;D ;D

To my point of view I do not support anything would harm the bitcoin and that's I think about any hard fork solution. I would like the gentle one that is, the segwit which is a soft fork and as was proposed by the core team. Unfortunately as the reality shows the hard fork is more likely to happen now than ever.  

I do also do not like Hardfork since it has many bugs and will cause many problems later on bitcoins. Though I also do not want segwit but if I were to choose between the two I would rather choose Segwit over hardfork. Segwit is much safer than hardfork and the lightning network that segwit will support is so easy to use and even children ca understand it.

One factor is that I don't want to see fallen price, I like it higher than 1000$, if hard fork won't make any change in this task (I don't hope so) than it will be ok for me.
Transactions are cheap if you are sending huge amount of bitcoins but when I have to send 0.008 btc for example, than 0.0004 btc is higher fee in this situation.
I hope after hard forks, everything will become stable soon.

I do not want to make any changes to bitcoin at the moment. I think it is powerful enough to be able to grow, so we do not need any changes to make it worth less. BTU is a branch, I do not know if that is good or bad, but I find it is making people angry, and bitcoin is not liked, the value of bitcoin is declining and it is failing Compared to the other altcoin. This is bad and it should not happen. We need a solution to the current state of bitcoin.

I do not want a hardfork to happen. The hardfork is just a waste of time, the people who complain and nag about the transaction fees could just build their own Altcoin and do whatever they want to do.
It just seems like those guys doing the BU is just trying to distract people or gain more Bitcoin exposure with the media or something.

Bitcoin works right now so why should there be any major technical additions implemented to it?

Ok so many people dont want hardfork, so who decided to choose BU as an option? I see noone here want it. Someone was cheated or what? Or miners want it? buy why? I don`t know why the thread about hardfork in bitcoin even started.

not necessarily a network split, but HF is fine, we need those to upgrade because the 1mb size is death.   not convinced segwit is the solution.  much prefer EC

Also your poll is misleading because many equate network split with hardfork and you make it seem that BU will lead to network split which is not necessarily true.

No, a hard fork will be a terrible news for bitcoin and all the other coins, the price will come down and confidence in the technology will erode as the media will do an effort to spread the news and say that bitcoin is death or something.

I don't see why people who are educated in this aspect would possibly want a hard fork considering that it is absolutely not needed at this time.

Your smartphone worked 5 generations ago, thankfully nobody had the same stance as you did. Bitcoin is constantly improving and evolving, and that is how it should be.

I really dont want bitcoin to hard fork, i think it would set us back years and would tank the price for 3 to 5 years.  I really dont get how so many people are against a bitcoin hardfork and yet the BU hashpower is rising.  ???

I don't want hardfork, I don't want to see bitcoin get clone. I don't really understand with the code, technical system, algorithm, or anything about that, i am not that man. I am just a bitcoin user that already comfortable with bitcoin right now and don't want bitcoin get compete. I see what happened with eth, etc. I just curious to ask why, why we need it? Because of raising fee?

As some of you said already SegWit is not a hard fork and it will offer backward compatibility, so it is a safer option compared to standard hard fork.
Secondly, hard fork is not something inherently evil and wrong, it is natural way to upgrade a protocol, many altcoins had successful hard forks in the past.
Split - the problem you are referring to as potential outcome of HF is only possible when losing side won't accept defeat and will stick to their old protocol rules.

I do not support a hard fork, and honestly there are way better solutions to the problems that are being faced by the blockchain than forking into something like Segwit (even though it is more of a softfork) or BU.

Both answers seem to be leaving out a lot of the other important parts of the blockchain, and something should be done to find a bit better of a solution. I don't know what it is, but tabling those two as the only options seems to be short-sighted.

For me, I am quite hesistant to changes as I am comfortable already on the present except for the transaction speed. But if this hard fork is beneficial to all of us and improve the bitcoin the way we transact its ok for me.

We don’t need it, but in open source projects hard forks are common when the developers seems to have strong differences in the direction the project needs to go, and at this moment there are big differences about how bitcoin should resolve some of its issues.

No way for hard fork, we can't give our future to those BU incompetent devs.

No i don't want hard fork, because of this rumour bitcoin price already fall down and cause the instability price, if the forking really happened then the price will fall deeper and a lot of people will leave bitcoin, it is not good for bitcoin, because once people leave, it will be difficult for them to believe in bitcoin again

No, One Bitcoin to rule them all however being ignorant of all the possibilities is a fools fallacy so its good to prepare for those situations as much as you can.

i would not mind hard fork to change the algo, if needed and make it truly decentralized again with gpu mining, i would really love this to happen, but an hard fork to change the block like unlimited it's not something i would support

everythign that make bitcoin better is welcome, and more decentralization isn't a bad thing, but almost none would agree with this change

As we all know the development of Bitcoin is accelerating.

The number of new features, improvements and innovations is increasing all the time.

Scaling is just one issue and it does not define Bitcoin. Scaling will continue to be an issue as long as Bitcoin is growing.

In this way, a soft fork implementing Bitcoin core would allow the integration of quite useful features for the whole community, such as: segwit, lighting network and tumblebit.

Why Canadian Companies Unanimously Rejecting Bitcoin Unlimited

The vast majority of the Canadian Bitcoin market and industry believe that Bitcoin Unlimited as a contentious hard fork shouldn’t be executed or forked for various reasons. Major companies including Honey Badger, Bitcoin PoS and Opendime manufacturer Coinkite and Bitcoin broker Yuri Yerofeyev stated that Bitcoin Unlimited goes against almost every criterion of a healthy and beneficial hard fork.

See more details below:

https://cointelegraph.com/news/why-canadian-companies-unanimously-rejecting-bitcoin-unlimited
 

No, I don't want a hardfork. Bitcoin must stay crippled as is and stagnate itself out of relevance. /s

Yes, of course I do, if the reasons are good. Hardfork is most of the time the only way to evolve.
But your question is not well - made. You should have asked if we want BU hardfork. Then the answer is "no". Bitcoin Unlimited is not well enough thought and implemented. It's not enough future proof, it fixes a short term problem .. for short time.

Of course, it would have been nice to see a real discussion between parts and some sort of "in between" solution, to make everybody happy. I would have liked that because now either of the options seems to be still far away.

Is it for real that SegWit will come live next winter even if the 95% is not met??

If there are only alternatives to keep the old system moving faster and efficient to cater the demands of todays bitcoins community without resorting to segwit (softfork) and Bitcoin Unlimited (hardfork) then the recent conflicts will not be very crucial to bitcoins survival. But I do not lose hope and I believe that there will be some technological advancement in the future that will settle the problems in bitcoin without changing protocols.

I dont want any hardfork,split or BU. But bitcoin should change as it is cause we need solutions in the bitcoin scaling problem or is there even a scaling problem to begin with. Because ive only seen few people complaining about their transactions not going through or not confirming if Bitcoin scaling is really that a major crisis. Why is there no many complaints coming from the users?

Ok, I voted no, but everyone has to admit Bitcoin needs a solution, and needs it fast.

From far away it looks like Bitcoin Core developpers are sleeping. A lot of altcoins are way faster, way cheaper, way more user-friendly than bitcoin. Biggers blocks or Segwit is needed. Even if the hard fork affraids me a lot, and I don't want it to happen, I'm ready to understand their position and admit they are right...

While we think of hardfork we need to think of the miners, 1MB blockade doesn't look to be a big issue. Users get a small delay in the confirmation with a lot transaction log. This can be sought out even without increasing the blocksize. The blocksize increase first directly attacks the miners who are the people for such a perfect functioning, because only the large scale miners can mine and the mining difficulty of small scale miners will be quite hard.

Under the actual circumstances a hardfork would be very dangerous and damaging to Bitcoin!
Imo it has to happen with an overwhelming agreement. If that can't be reached it should be avoided!
So right now I would prefer a softfork and activation of SegWit. I have nothing against a moderate blocksize increase, if all agree and we can be sure that decentralization doesn't get hurt.
A fork and blocksize increase with BU however is no solution and far away form being a progress. That's my 2 cent.

No. This just make things complicated

It depends if it improve the protocol of Bitcoin and make it to scale and compete with the latest technology both in crypto and finance system I will support it. But if it is only to fuel the greed of some people then I am completely agaisnt it.  Hardfork is not evil and mostly needed to implement something to avoid errors and exploits during update/upgrade

Hard Forks are not that big a Deal, why Core is acting like a bunch of crybabies over one is stupid.

Set the Hard fork for 2 months in the Future, Let everyone know they need to update by posting in the forums and calling the big mining pools.
And that is it, anyone that is too lazy too update, will find out when they can no longer send and receive BTC.
Then they just update the Wallet and redownload the Blockchain and -reindex to make sure all of their coins are intact and they are on the correct fork.
It is not hard for anyone with half a brain, why you guys act like it is the Bogeyman is just stupid.
Grow up Children , Real Men are not afraid of hard forks.

 8)

But we don't need hard fork. There are many ways bitcoin can be 'upgraded' without HF.
We can have perfectly fine off-chain scaling solution as well, end users and business are ready for it now.
Why risk it with HF when we have other options? Sure, it is easier to say that HF is good when you have altcoin worth $200M to fork.
Not whole economic network worth $17BILLION ATM.

Of course we do not want hard folk, any sane person will outright reject this idea. This idea is only accepted to miners and small amount of the community who are failing to see the effect that it will cause upon us. I do hope before its to late people realize that they are making a big mistake agreeing with hard folk. Bitcoin is the best and Bitcoin can never be replaced by any other coin. I do personally hope that people shall wake up and stop this madness.

I voted no because I don't like to have bitcoinX in my wallet and I don't want the price to crash but sadly there will be a fork that'll happen. Segwit looks impossible, now we have BU left I don't like any of these because I feel like miners will mostly benefit from these changes imo.

It is now cheaper to send money orders than BTC and may be faster depending on the unconfirmed transactions.
We needed a Hard Fork 3 months ago, and we need it even more now.

Offchain Scaling , without ONCHAIN Capacity will result in Increased Theft of Bitcoins when the Time Locks expire due to network spamming.
Read the LN WhitePaper it is a Know Flaw of LN , and it was stupid of core to promote segwit & LN before increasing the blocksize.

Again , if you children are that scared of hard forks, leave your BTC on the exchanges and the grown ups will handle it for you.  :P

 8)

I am not very familiar with this issue, because I don't know very well the technical details but I voted negatively. There are some reasons about this decision where the most important, imho, are:

Exchanges have already declared that will accept BU as altcoin.
Many people they will loose their faith in bitcoin; something that took years from bitcoin entrepreneurs to be built.
I don't have the same trust to BU developers as to Core ones. Recent bugs which were discussed in some threads of this forum are proofs of that.

Yeah baby, furk it harder. Bend over, thrust, and mutilate that azz!

Bloody or it didn't happen.

The hard fork is a classic example of how the media influences people in the 21st century.

1. Create a "crisis".  (unconfirmed spam transactions)
2. Propose a "solution" to fix said "crisis".  (bitcoin unlimited)
3. Implement the bad "solution".  (hard fork)
4. The outcome is worse than the original problem.

Sometimes the "cure" is worse than the "disease".

If you are going to send over $100 then the fee is really not that big. Right now for example paying 101-120 sats per byte you'll have your transaction confirmed in 5 hours. Taking into account that a median transaction size is 226 bytes you'll have to pay around 25k sats which is not that much. And if you want your transaction get confirmed in 35 minutes you'll have to pay 200 sats per byte, or around 45k sats for a transaction which is not that much too. I know nowadays we have times when we have to pay over $1 for a fast transaction, but are those cases that frequent?

$20 , $ .60 transaction fee, $2 fee to convert from Fiat

Cost me $2.60 to send $20 damn bucks, 13% of the Total.

Money Orders are cheaper.

 8)

FYI:
In the Words of IAMNOTBACK,
Bend that BTC Bitch over the Counter and get to Hard Forking.

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3b0094638e5d41780c90cbdb20b5a03c-c

In your case yes. But normally people don't have to pay $2 fee to convert from Fiat, they just send BTC to one another, right? So even sending $20 worth of BTC and paying $0.60 for this is not that bad IMO. But of course if you want to send $5 it's bad, but I think we'll find a solution for that if we think hard enough.

Who do you know besides an ASICS miners that don't have to convert Fiat to BTC , to Have BTC to send.  :P
Just Curious.

 8)

People who are getting paid in BTC for their work. I know a guy who earned $2,000 in BTC in one month, in August 2016, for creating a poker site. There are many others earning smaller but still significant amounts, for example here, participating in Sig campaigns.

Initially I didn't want a hardfork but if it is going to congestion the blockchain and have smaller fees then for this reason only I would recommend it. If Bitcoin becomes too expensive to send, all those people sending to developing countries remittances, will end up opting for other digital currencies that are faster and cheaper, now that Pandora's box has been well opened. Bitcoin will always be Bitcoin, the forked off chain coin will just be another alt, like the rest, that we can choose from and enjoy. You now also have more bitcoin named coins like bitcoin plus and bitcoin dark, next we might have bitcoin gold who knows?   ;D ;D

Hmm,
If people like me quit buying BTC because of ridiculous fee system, who is your friend going to sell his BTC to , when he needs to convert to fiat.  ;)
Higher Transaction fees will be everyone's problem, not just mine.  :'(


 8)

Seems that majority doesn't want hard fork and many users have kind a fear of it. People don't like changes, I know. But is it realy so bad and does it realy need to bring something bad to bitcoin and its users. I think there is room for adjustment and hard fork could be something that we could get used to and everything could function well.

Right, most of us here don't want that hard fork. For me having bitcoin now is enough but I agree to you that there is always a room for improvements. We have already suffered those issues when it entered and it has a bad impact.

I may be a nostalgic person, so I choose bitcoin core, I want bitcoin is still it, I want it to grow from the original technology foundation, and do not want any other changes. Bitcoin is very powerful, it has shown us its potential, so we do not need any innovation. What we need is another way of addressing the present bugs, not the innovation to get more trouble. We all use bitcoin, and we develop it, which is a common resource for all of us. BU is just a greed of the miners, it should be excluded.

Simple, SegWit is serious, BU is a joke !

Sometimes it needs to get worse before it gets better. A fork would clear the air and it's probably really bad short term but should be good medium/long term if enough miners starts supporting BU.

Segwit is a crappy implementation and relying on the LN vaporware is insanity. As a benefit we could get rid of crazies (you all know who I mean).

It's not a matter of 'there is room for improvements'. Bitcoin needs to scale, and better as soon as possible. It prevents Bitcoin from growing further as current situation leads to nothing but doubts and panic. SegWit isn't a perfect solution, but it's the best one so far, and should get activated as soon as possible. BU stands for a hostile takeover, which is exactly what we at all times must prevent. There is no place for hidden agendas.

I voted for the Segwit option, because I can see the need for an update, only that update shouldn't cause a fork. I've noticed many people are afraid off a fork and don't really understand how it works, but they already know it's something bad. This shows that if a fork ever does happen we'll have a mass exodus of people unfamiliar with the term. A good situation for traders, but bad if you're a holder or planning to spend your coins in the near future.

No. Since there is bitcoin, separtion shouldn't be. Let's just focus on one currency at a time and make it wider. However, no matter on what we say, it is still upon them if they will continue it or not. Let's just believe in bitcoin and sure thing, it would pump again.

Trust me, no one wants a hardfork. Some may want it ideologically, like the ETH/ETC split. But when it's actually implemented, the growing pains/price fluctuations make it a pain in the ass.

But it seems like the issue will be forced.

I think that if we agree on the idea of making the bitcoin unlimited that will destroy it and make the bitcoin a worthless thing, the only reason people are so interested in bitcoin is because of its high price and that comes from saving it because it is a limited thing so people rush to buying it like there is no tomorrow to try make a profit out of it, and making it unlimited will turn that idea all around.

At first it was the only reason, but it's not the only reason for deciding to leave bitcoin, for BU haters : what you think and what you can give to bitcoin solution in the future?

When blocksize has been completed, bitcoin will become increasingly scarce, higher price, and not everyone will be able to have a lot of bitcoin, but just a substantives small deployment of market interests. BU can be a long-term solution even if the price will go down from now, we need centralization to be accepted in legitimate legal civilization.

I agree and I'm really grateful  to you that you are from the ones who is buying BTC. I'm not saying that ridiculously high fees is not a problem I'm just saying that around $0.5 is not ridiculously high and lately we are  having around $0.4 for a median transaction size so if it stays more or less on this level I'm okay with that.

I'm against the fork. I like to use bitcoin. Most of all, I do not want my savings to suffer. A fork can bring a lot of bad for investors

yes but will solve current drama and in year/two we will see who have right staying in stagnation is killing btc

No, hard fork is a bad idea, it will split bitcoin support into two and I do not like BU too. I do not see any good resolution to the problem of scaling but I am sure BU or hard fork is not the solution to it.

The problem is that bitcoin is not your average open source project a fork in bitcoin will shake the confidence of investors and with it the price and if the price of bitcoin tanks then many investors will probably give up on crypto currencies even if things improve in the long term.

I won't expect that hard fork will pass in the upcoming days, because if forking occurs then price automatically dumped to low value in the chart. We know the bitcoin is always volatile and price is fluctuating but still btc need to settle in a base value and we did it. We settled the 1050$ as base value for this year. Hope we will see the next peak value before this year ends.

If there is no fork, then we can see such a value. But if there is a split, the price will be restored for a long time and it will be a big step back. I do not want a fork

I don't like bitcoin unlimited, but I like segwit approach more than the retro one.

I was very surprised at the number of votes given in support of the hardfork of Bitcoin, especially from supporters of Bitcoin who believe that the fork either inevitable or "it's not so bad." I understand them, but they're wrong.
Exchangers confirmed that in the case of the hardfork they will put BTU for trading as alitcoin - it scares me, because although people in the industry know what altcoin is, the average person outside the industry doesn't.

No matter how hard I disagree to a hard fork, somewhere down the road it would still be the path that we will be taking since it would be our best bet to scalability issues in the future. Also, changes are inevitable into an ever-changing system and also to ensure that we are heading for improvement and not taking things worse.

What you mean is bittrex? some markets hinted to be the most advanced when hardfork really going to happen. Concepts Unlimited solutions for future arrangements, but the impact on temporary price reduction. then what are you afraid of, what are you afraid of bitcoin will be monopolized/drive prices down? sometimes we need capitalism to increase progress in future or bitcoin never going to get a formal legality.

Correct, this will create a confusion about which one is the true bitcoin and which one is the alt, also the media is going to use that to spread even more disinformation about bitcoin and more and more people will decide to not invest in bitcoin.

I don't think we need hardfork because we don't really need that. We just only need a team that can support bitcoin very well and try to maintain it on its good performance and sustain the needs of the growing amount of the bitcoin users. That is what we need and we don't need hardfork or another cloned coin just to ease the things up.