Bitcoin Forum

It is granted that fiat is generally brought into creation by borrowing against a balance of zero by central banks across the world. While people may compare this to a fork situation where seemingly an entire new concurrent stream of cryptocurrency based on the principle is created, I think that there are many differences.

First, there is a total of just over 200 currencies around the world, while there are already 1000s of different cryptocurrencies (imagine 1000s of different forked versions which are forked further).  Secondly, when a currency is borrowed against nothing (with certain exceptions) the currency depreciates Sharpley in value.  It does not increase. There’s no way that our governments can announce that we all have an equal amount of new currency based on what you had at the time of announcement and expect it to be valuable.


Cryptocurrencies should face the same market forces. While people may view Bitcoin cash as valuable and as it stands, it seems that a correction did not happen, the cryptocurrency community should treat forks of coins with the contempt they deserve.  When BCH was created out of thin air, its value should have been 0.001$ but instead, the market valued it at $700 and now its about $300. Holders of bitcoin were rewarded new valuable currency as though it were largess. The next cryptocurrency fork should be treated harshly especially if it’s a further BTC split.

This issue of forking must be addressed if cryptocurrencies are to become as accepted and understood as fiat.

There's a question of whether currency can gain value or be devalued through inefficient spending.

Example when new york was bought from native americans for paltry sum. Did the value of real estate diminish while the value of goods traded for new york gain value?

Another example if a government bought 200 toilet seats at a cost of $4 billion dollars, would that devalue US currency?

That could be one area where crypto retains value over other currencies, its buying/selling paradigm is more efficient and more effective than other currencies which negates the effect inflation(inefficient spending) has upon it.

People can do whatever they want. Bitcoin is resilient by design and there's virtually no issues to be worried about.
The crypto market is lean and very efficient (not perfect) but it's as good as it gets.

i have a laser printer at home and some simple A4 papers. i design some pretty square image and write a number on top right corner of it and then start printing it.
if you think what i just printed is a "currency" like what USD, ... are then yes there are 1000s of different cryptocurrencies.

they are treated harshly the same way most altcoins are treated.
this has nothing to do with their prices, it is all the economy that never switches over. you are talking about "currency" in this topic and that means when they are being treated harshly!
when no merchant, services, payment processor,... even considers using any of these altcoins that proves they are useless.

the price is just for speculators wanting to make more money ($$$) out of it. the market is easily manipulated too and there are people who are still hopeful that BCC reaches the same price as BTC so they they are hodling!

and in my opinion it is a decentralized and free market we can not and should not tell others what they can or can not do.

It is the market which attributes to different forks. Bitcoin Cash does have significant backing and actually split the bitcoin community. So it would be wrong to attribute 0 value to it. Bitcoin has risen post the split. That does not take away anything from Bitcoin Cash.

I think just in the case of the bitcoin cash split, the fork probably has some value.
After all, it's a split from the dominant currency.
Bitcoin has become a brand and it has public notification.
A fork from bitcoin inherits in my eyes some of the brand value of bitcoin.
At the same time the brand value of bitcoin stays the same.
If the value of bitcoin cash realy is as high as it was/is of course there are different opinions for that.

Not all forks are created equally, to use that expression. :P The Bitcoin Cash developers are unknown, untrusted people who are just doing a simple fork of the software. The economy backs the Core developers. I believe this will be the case in the future, even if future forks split the network considerably and all network values suffer considerably as a result.

But markets are not efficient, especially in this atmosphere of crypto hype and market manipulation in unregulated, illiquid markets. There are forces (Roger Ver, for instance) that are likely propping up the BCH price to dry up the liquid supply. Like BTC, most BCH will not move. Once supply dries up, it can be pumped, and the Bitcoin Cash haters can be "proven wrong." Bitmain could even start pointing hash power at it once it's profitable to mine. Wouldn't that be an interesting development? :D

I would imagine the paltry sum of money spent to purchase New York at that time was a very significant sum, which would imply the value of real estate shot up. Regarding government spending, If there is an oversupply of currency (or goods) in the market, then the value falls (supply-demand economics). In fact, less than 10% of USD's are printed and actually in circulation. Whilst I agree certain cryptos are more efficient than other currencies insofar as negating the effect of inflation is true, the fact of the matter is that the hourly fluctuations that occur trading any crypto currency is greater than a year or two's worth of inflation. Also, when the market rejects this idea of forking currencies by reducing them to junk status, the effect that would have on an overwhelming number of cryptos (in terms of uncertainty causing prices of the main currency to drop) is literally 10 times worse than years of inflation. It's interesting really.


What about all the unsustainable daily fluctuations on the value of bitcoin? I'd think that's a pressing problem if theres to be widespread adoption. Also, the absolutely inflated price of bitcoin (higher than gold and almost every commodity) , which only the elite can afford seems like another problem. The cryptosphere can be a lot more efficient. There are significant shortcoming emerging which will only get more apparent as more people adopt it and 'real' fiat starts pouring in.

My point is that currently few merchants and payment processors recognise the main cryptocurrencies (BTC,ETH)etc. The idea of forked versions which come out of nowhere (There's talk of Bitcoin Segwit 2x Hard fork this November already!), should have value is ridiculous and I am suggesting that once the market collectively get the relevant information the correction of these forked versions to junk status will happen, while significantly affecting the value of the principal version. In the meanwhile convincing humans that something that literally didn't exist yesterday has a value of hundred of dollars will fail miserably (even convincing the public to adopt cryptos could be a hard sell). If we want to preserve our crypto environment, we should collectively reject the vast majority of the forking attempts to protect ourselves.









What about the planned Bitcoin Segwit 2x hard fork and the next one and the one after that. We should draw the line somewhere otherwise we will be doing this noble idea of cryptos a disservice.  Bitcoin has only risen because there wasnt a 'hard fork' but lets not forget, the same way BTC has risen quickly, it can fall..taking down the entire industry!





It makes sense that bch is building on BTC's recognisable name. But where does it stop and at what point does the value of BTC drop significantly because of all the uncertainty surrounding each fork and the unknowable number of future forks?

Imagine if the new york stock exchange created a 'forked version' of all their shares and tried to pass it off as equal value to which the market erroneously responds by correcting the forked version of the market to 35% of the value and increasing the actual exchange by 35%..it's unbelievable.  I know cryptos and shares are different but think about it!

I think in the case of Bitcoin Cash we have a special situation that won't be replicated that easy by future "forkers". BCH profited massively from the "big blocker" fraction, which was (and is still, in part) a part of the Bitcoin community, and is quite large and has some financial resources (Jihan, Ver). There are no other groups in the community that have an intention to fork and the power to keep the price of a "ForkCoin" that high like we see it with BCH. For example, a "LukeCoin" with 300-500 kB blocks would have very low support.

If now a new wave of "fork-altcoins" do appear, I expect them to become mere "sh*tcoins", that means, that they will have market capitalizations of less than 1% of Bitcoin's. So I don't expect a negative influence on Bitcoin at all. If the community wasn't that split like in the past 2 years, a "Bitcoin Cash" would never have succeeded.

It's truly unbelievable. The thing is, price has been disconnected from fundamentals for a long time now. And the Bitcoin Cash split is nothing compared to the potential November split. The Segwit2x fork is supported by most miners and many major bitcoin services/businesses/exchanges.

Eventually, when the overall bullish sentiment starts wearing thin, I think we'll start seeing more realistic supply/demand forces for BCH (and BTC, if BCH really took from BTC's network effect). But given how frothy the market is right now, it's impossible to say when we'll enter another bear market. It could be a year out, or more.

Its like that because all the coins want to be popular at once and at such they want people to invest in them at once and since there is no regulator for cryptos there is nothing anyone can do, the only thing that can be done is to put in some regulations for each country

I understand the fear of the different versions of currency especially in crypto where the ones available have not been fully exhausted and several are still coming out on a daily basis but not all of them are fighting to be a currency because majority are just stocks of companies running a business just like what we have in the fiat stock market that all stock of companies does not interpret to currency just like that.

the thing is "there is money to be made", and that is the root of all the problems ever existed in crypto sphere!

from early days, there have been a large number of people who have only been interested in one thing and one thing only: to earn more money.
the most obvious way is to buy, invest, earn,... but the harder way to make even bigger has always been to create something new and "bling-y" so that you attract more attention.
the new altcoin creation has always been a thing.

that "bling" in this case was the use of bitcoin's name + Satoshi's name + taking advantage of issues bitcoin is facing. now there is an additional way of making money called BCH.
* users made money for free because it was an airdrop
* traders made a lot of money because they know how pump and dumps work
* miners made even more because they had the hashpower and knew how to abuse EDA which was implemented for this very reason.

sadly there is nothing we can do to stop this. it is how the world works. a bunch of greedy people taking advantage of anything that moves!

ICOs are a separate issue, and I get that. But I don't think the OP is off-base here. Let's say, a network continually splits into smaller and smaller networks, each of which continues to use a similar fork of Bitcoin. They are effectively increasing the supply vs. the original network, since new coins are being minted on each fork. Not only that, but each network is exponentially less valuable, since they keep repeatedly splitting in size.

In this context, it would look like cryptocurrencies (and even Bitcoin) were printable, and their value per Metcalfe's Law were failing.

Its really something so appalling that we had to face this challenges at this time and if care is not taken, it then means that the fear of OP will come into fruition because it will then create a high level of confusion in the mind of multinationals in deciding which version of bitcoin they want to adopt and by so doing, we tend to kill this great initiative at that. I hope developers will listen to reason and find another lasting solution rather than forking and creation of several versions.

It's clear where the vast majority of developers stand. Core represents hundreds of active Bitcoin developers, and they stand adamantly opposed to the November hard fork attempt. For btc1, it's just Jeff Garzik, Sergio Lerner, the Bcoin devs and... I don't even know who else.

The problem is not Bitcoin developers, who largely support Segwit and the Lightning Network and oppose the hard fork. The problem is entrenched industry interests like Bitpay/Coinbase (whose payment processing model desperately needs cheaper fees), and major mining companies that can sidestep the orphaning concerns of smaller miners vis-a-vis larger block sizes.

I think that Bitmain has an interest in facilitating another split as well. If Segwit2x causes a significant network split, dividing the legacy chain against Segwit2x forkers, it will be a perfect opportunity for Bitmain to thrust its AsicBoost-compatible Bitcoin Cash to the forefront. Divide and conquer. I really think this is the plan, and honestly, it looks like the ecosystem is falling right into it.

If the vulnerability is found quickly, it is more likely that the Bitcoin code would be fixed and perhaps a fork update would be done very quickly to reduce exposure to this vulnerability. Something similar has happened before and the realization of a fork was exactly the reaction given by the community. The most interesting question is: what if the vulnerability is identified much later? Most likely, this will cause a sharp drop in the price not just of Bitcoin, but also of virtually all market altcoins, because the general confidence in the cryptocurrencies would be shaken. After all, how could we know if an undetected vulnerability could not also be present in each of the altcoins?

The next big software development may not be a fork at all.

It could be forced, mandatory use of bitcoin and whatever the next alt is.

Similar to bitcoin cash, except instead of a fork where one can choose to use bitcoin or bitcoin cash, it would force end users to use both coins.

So what would you suggest to improve the features of a coin?

Hard forks are usually bad seeing that it creates two different markets of the same goal: to be the best selling coin and top chain so that all the money would flow toward it. Aside from that, a hard fork creates a new coin with different festures and other implementations which may be different from the original coin, thus creating two coins with the same core concept but with different functionalities, thus creating two choices for people what to use and most especially what benefits them. It isn't entirely bad if you see it on a bigger picture as it creates more room for people to choose and most of the time, the market adapts.

It only becomes bad when these coins are being milked out by greedy investors. That's where the problem is and not really the forking itself.

Forks are good things. They can try and copy Bitcoin as much as possible and say that they're the real Bitcoin as much as possible, but people are getting harder to trick now. They know Bitcoin is the good shit and don't want that fake shit.

People can freely fork Bitcoin at any given time if they have enough hashrate, let them fork. Even if ideally we should all stay together in a chain to have the highest hashrate possible, this is delusional, sometimes there are irreconcilable differences. The problem is when they try to pass it as "Bitcoin" like segwit2x is trying to do, by trying to kill the legacy chain. Then we are going to see some serious problems.

Im expecting more NYA singers to drop like flies in the coming weeks. It would be a failure for Bitcoin if the protocol can be changed by bribing miners with USD.