Why?  That is making new coins.  Those who hate a pre-mine should be against instant coins. Just because you have coins on one chain doesn't mean you are entitled to another chain.  You believe in that chain? GREAT!! Sell or trade the old ones for the new. Or change up what you are mining. EDIT: I see the problem since the chains share the same history.... i believe unless there is a consensus it is just another ALT.  As far as I have seen, the forks share a fraction of the value of the original coins. 

I may not have much say here but I think it is fairly easy to assume that forks and coin rip-offs are a concern in the crypto community.

Firstly-  A fork that gives coins for free because you owned the original coins doesn't make sense.   If you believed in the new coin shouldn't you sell the original to buy the new? Or maybe a trade option to trade original coins for the new fork?

Greed.  Free money?  That is what they want but No.  Free Money doesn't exist, instead it takes from others in some way or another. I was banned from the Electronero telegram and twitter.  I used no profanities and no baseless insults which has been prevalant in Electroneum itself but tolerated because the proof is in the pudding. The Electronero WP did nothing but bash the Electroneum devs.   What stuns me is they obviously want to benefit from them.  Otherwise they would just bounce off the Monero code and make their own coin. Electroneum is less then a year old so a fork like that is ridiculous.   Electroneum was the only ICO I believed in and have had no problems with them.  In fact the mobile miner has attracted over 150k miners at ONE time.  The mass adoption goal is being accomplished so Electronero cannot claim that is their goal if they just try to steal the already large user base of Electroneum.   Create your own adoption instead of trying to convert others. The heart of this also includes Bcash.  At least Bcash didn't try to fork BitCoin 8 months after development.  If I am not allowed to try to get more perspective from the Electronero Devs instead of an instant ban for asking a question then this is a bad coin.  So, every owner of Electroneum that happened to do the things necessary to recieve these ETNX coins take a look at things. The ETNX team is just milking what Electroneum already did with a roadmap that says "1st anniversary suprise".  That is the road map guys. A suprise, meaning we will all be suprised if these coins sell for more than .00000001 Doge.  Meanwhile taking advantage of the newbies to crypto as ETN has attracted many to this new financial system.

Rant Over.

Hey guys havent been on much but I was looking at the HOLD coin website and it says %25 of max supply burned. What is that about? Why burn it later when you can just set the initialmax supply to the real number?

I first heard on a CollegeHumor sketch. Jake and Amir- BitCoin

You are 100% correct about Segwit2x being a greed driven product.  I would say you are wrong about Game Theory not playing a part.  Because of it being a Nash Equalibrium (all players do not have to change their strategy based on the other persons decision to recieve the reward.)  When one of the 2 chains becomes compromised then logically one will have to change their strategy to keep the equalibrium.  So the 2 chains logically must settle down at some time so their is no problem at all for supporters and non-supporters in way of economic gain but the point was raised interestingly that greed is the strategy behind segwit2x.  If over %50 percents of the mining power leaves the original chain then that chain should follow suit immediately and dump the original coins into seg2x.  I mean all said and done it is just a way to get instant cash. There is to much money into it now for bitcoin itself to go anywhere. Hard forks like BCCash are just alt coins that don't require the work of starting at the bottom

I started this topic about Game Theory and the correlation to the new crypto economic world.  It is my firm belief BitCoin will NOT be a fad for any time in the near future in fact you saying it is a possibility kinda tells me you don't know nearly enough about it. But lets entertain that idea:

The rational meantioned in Game Theory is not the definition you are giving it.

Rationality is have a preference order that is complete and transitive. That is the definition of rationality in a game-theoretical sense.

In economics and game theory, it is sometimes assumed that agents have perfect rationality: that is, they always act in a way that maximizes their utility, and are capable of arbitrarily complex deductions towards that end.  -

So anyway.  Im still learning a lot about game theory. I don't have perfect rationality but I would call the thought of calling BitCoin a fad happening in my lifetime irrational.

http://gametheory101.com/courses/game-theory-101/rationality/

So when all is said and done BitCoin core will prevail as it set the initial rules of crypto as far as we know by introducing the blockchain.  As long as any crypto uses any blockchain it just means it has different rules. Core is the best word to call BitCoin and until there is a %51 percent consensus all hard forks are just alts fueled by greed until another fork brings the alt back into the original chain or the alt dies... Or at least will never be worth as much. The name BitCoin remains forever in the cryptocurrency market.

I believe all the abstracts you guys mentioned can be added to the economic calculations which is why game theory is so interesting when applied to the current digital economy.  For instance the coolest variable mentioned is knowing whether or not players are rational or not.  Superrational thinking cannot always go for group thinking and cannot cooperate every round as the individualized more greedy rational thinking will take advantage. Although the number of players is finite the exact number of individuals is unknown.  So both rationalities will battle. Completely irrational players lose quickly.  Superrational thinkers being inherently less greedy will try to use group effort to maintaining the highest odds of winning although having less returns then game-theoretic thinking.  This is why one cannot be proven to be superior in multiple round games with in unknown number of rounds due to the unknown variables of the other players. Example game Superrational thinking is player A and game-theoretic thinking player B

Round one- A chooses cooperate for highest probability and B chooses defect for highest returns. Although both have a degree of selfishness B is statistically more selfish since he is at greater risk the more rounds are played.  
A -1 B+2

Round 2-  A now knows that B logically has a greater percentage of choosing defect albeit an unknown amount.  B vise-versa.  If A chooses to still cooperate then he is at slightly greater risk now knowing B is no longer at 50% probability for defect 50.1% maybe?) B now is the opposite.  B won but has to factor in the endless loop of an endless defect/defect response.  This would be a draw.  In humans B to remain selfish has to change at sompoint.  So does A.  These factors increase exponentially every round.  In a game of chess both players of equal rating theoretically should make the same amount of mistakes or blunders.  The more you know about any game the more you don't have to worry about human thinking. That is why a superior player does not need to know all the emotional nuances of the other player. Only his own. He will win as long as every move is strictly logical.  The only human interference is an external force (for example someone coming over and knocking the board down or in BitCoin government and business interference).  So all said and done you hit the nail on the head with happiness factors. Chess is a non-cooperative game so it cannot use the same logic as cooperative games like these economic games that have team play. However, cooperative games can use logic applied in uncooperative games. If someone is going for highest monetary returns STRICTLY then quality of life theoretically goes down (as aging and death decrease the value of money overtime and overall life value is determined by other factors like family and friends and experiences)  Otherwise to keep the game of money going and guarantee at least some reward every round cooperating is best in my opinion.  The game of life which it seems you were hinting at when you mentioned happiness is the greatest problem we are all trying to solve. Imperfection and irrational thinking throw the math out the window with the economic games.  For instance poker.  One irrational thinker can ruin any chance a rational thinkers (be it Superrational or game-theoretic) to calculate returns and odds each round as he is not employing strategy but just pure luck of the unknown. He could go all in on an 7/2 off suit pre-flop for no reason but the flop is 777 giving him a %100 chance of winning the round.  The random numbers in computer games are the unknown variable.  In human economics then both types of thinkers benefit from the irrational players or self-sacrificing players.  One type being more greedy does not get too concerned about the other players welfare if they are winning each round.  In humans many only "team" up with friends and family and when they fare badly they switch to cooperate.  Some... Few...  team up with the human family and battle the defectors constantly as they take risks protecting the irrational.  That is a whole other topic but in BitCoin I was thinking forks of BitCoin at all are inherently greedy because  supporters (who think they should be the %51 or hate that miners have power) do not want to lose BitCoin core completely because of already held value and if they essentially double the coins their is no immediate risk it seems completely logical.  It does very negatively impact the irrational self-sacraficers which ones without care and concern for group cooperating will see as disposable. That goes for all businesses. The other Superrational thinkers are not affected as it cannot be proven which one is better as the number of rounds is unknown.  That is where human morals, ethics and spirituality plays a part as the true value of life is not determined by physical wealth. Those things cannot be computed but do not make a person irrational which is why I think Superrational thinking will prevail always in life's value but not in tangible physical economic value. That is why we have the saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely" to have this power one must remove certain moral and spiritual ideologies. But I digress...

EDIT: Poker analogy off. Odds are not 100% as anyone with a poker pair of 8s or higher getting a 4 of a kind on turn and river is possible.

I think the prisoners dilemma applies very well to bitcoin forks.  A game-theoretic rational thinker thinks:  If BitCoin players defect the reward is always better for the defector.  Because if:

 If you cooperate and the other defects, the defector gets the best outcome (In BitCoin that would be retaining all of the original chains coins and amassing the forked coins as well) So it is best to defect.

This though is not the best for you individually or for all players.   If all players defect nothing is gained(BitCoin Fails)

This cannot happen to BitCoin easily. Only a controlling force (centralized force) can change the rules so you cannot play the original game. For example government bans.

Superrational thinking assuming the other players thinking is Superrational knows that the worst possibility is when everyone defects. He would automatically cooperate to receive an assured reward although not the best possible.  So hard forks seem completely illogical.  That is ASSUMING Superrational thinking for all players. When the others thinking is unknown then that is where trust plays a part.  Once we convince ourselves this others will cooperate and we make a transaction with bitcoin and all parties receive a reward.  

This explains many things.  The defecting party (fork supporters) is going aftwe the biggest reward. The cooperating (bitcoin core) players believe enough players will stay on their team to be stronger and thus all cooperating players receive a reward.  

Quite amazing how deep the rabbit hole goes.  But I believe that BitCoin started a new economic game and is the controlling source of the game. The games is the blockchain and it is the largest and strongest.  Fear of weaknesses only should play a part in human error.  BitCoin is trusted because computers cannot deviate from the rules.  ALTs are fun mini-games within the game so all BitCoin forks just become alts.

Well that's my rant. The Superrational way to play is in a way less greedy. So although I'm late in the game its still fun I believe the segwit2x community is more selfish at a deep level.

Excuse formatting. On mobile