Should we copy and create another BTC, directly naming it BTC2?

[mcdouglasx]

Can we create another BTC and name it BTC2?

There's nothing stopping you, but it would be a waste of time unless you improve it so much that your fork is more attractive than the original code. However, at this point, it's very unlikely that you would succeed because you would need a lot of experts behind you to develop and test these improvements. But in the case that you succeed and implement these improvements or ideas, they could still be used again in Satoshi's bitcoin.

[pooya87]

That is a weird drawing of Bitcoin history that I dare say is wrong because by including unrelated events and clients it creates confusion specially since "fork" has a different meaning depending on the context!

In the context of this topic and possibly what that image was trying to say, a fork is a copycat shitcoin that copies bitcoin's source code and possibly even the blockchain and creates a copy of it naming it something else. Like bitcoin gold, bitcoin cash, ...

But that's not the only thing the image shows which is the confusing part.
For instance bitcoin knots is a fork of bitcoin core project in the Git sense and in programming. That means they copied bitcoin core's code and modified/improve it. But it is still called Bitcoin because it is the same exact implementation of Bitcoin protocol. So it is NOT a different category or a branch as it is falsely shown in the image. It should have been in the same orange line and be called Bitcoin.

Then there is others like ilbbitcoin which is not a fork in any sense of the word, it is just a different and stand alone implementation of same protocol called Bitcoin and because of that it must NOT be a different category.

Then they are also including fork meaning upgrade like BIP16 or the recent one like SegWit. But again that is part of Bitcoin's natural advance and should not be in a different category with a different line. There should only be one straight orange line called Bitcoin.

[TastyChillySauce00]

sounds like you're doing what other people have been doing for years . so many attempt of copying bitcoin, all of them fail, just because you can create another BTC and naming it BTC2 doesn't mean it will become the next BTC it will more likely become shitcoin and is clearly not bitcoin.

after all it's open source, anyone can create their own bitcoin but just don't expect much from it. even you might have better odd of getting fame by releasing meme coin .

[woez]

BTC is not a meme coin like we see in many markets once there is a strong one that attracts many developers who adopt and deploy the token to become the second one, for example DOGE becomes DOGE1, DOGE2 and so on.

If you can't stand the decline, we should take a break from the market and find other activities that refresh our minds. If you buy BTC, just wait another 3 months, the price will have skyrocketed and there is nothing to be afraid of if we have invested in BTC.

[stadus]

The question is can, and the answer is yes. But that’s the wrong question. It should be should we, though the answer remains the same.

Bitcoin has been very successful, so why would we even consider forking it? That would only add to the list of failed hard forks in the past.
So I think the question has already been answered, and no one would seriously consider creating another fork when it would most likely end in failure.

[Mayor of ogba]

Can we create another BTC and name it BTC2?

Where the creation of a coin or token that is already in existence is mostly common is in altcoins, and the reason most times why this happens is when a coin or token has failed and could no longer deliver what they promised to their investors, they will come up with a solution to their investors that they want to rebuild their project with new updates, a new platform, and a new name that could help the project attract more investors and increase in price when they relaunch it. Even after they relaunch the project, it will still not meet up with what their community wants. Since Bitcoin is not yet a failed project, I think there's no need for the creation of Bitcoin2 because it will not still outperform the Bitcoin we know.

[aoluain]

That is a weird drawing of Bitcoin history that I dare say is wrong because by including unrelated events and clients it creates confusion specially since "fork" has a different meaning depending on the context!

In the context of this topic and possibly what that image was trying to say, a fork is a copycat shitcoin that copies bitcoin's source code and possibly even the blockchain and creates a copy of it naming it something else. Like bitcoin gold, bitcoin cash, ...

But that's not the only thing the image shows which is the confusing part.
For instance bitcoin knots is a fork of bitcoin core project in the Git sense and in programming. That means they copied bitcoin core's code and modified/improve it. But it is still called Bitcoin because it is the same exact implementation of Bitcoin protocol. So it is NOT a different category or a branch as it is falsely shown in the image. It should have been in the same orange line and be called Bitcoin.

Then there is others like ilbbitcoin which is not a fork in any sense of the word, it is just a different and stand alone implementation of same protocol called Bitcoin and because of that it must NOT be a different category.

Then they are also including fork meaning upgrade like BIP16 or the recent one like SegWit. But again that is part of Bitcoin's natural advance and should not be in a different category with a different line. There should only be one straight orange line called Bitcoin.

Your are indeed right pooya87

While the chart does list 2 only Bitcoin forks it lists an awful lot of other projects and upgrades
which are in fact not forks. The chart is titled as a "List of Bitcoin Forks" - I suspect then that
the author/creator of that chart went off on a tangent and listed other stuff or maybe didnt
know the meaning of a fork.

The question is can, and the answer is yes. But that’s the wrong question. It should be should we, though the answer remains the same.

Bitcoin has been very successful, so why would we even consider forking it? That would only add to the list of failed hard forks in the past.
So I think the question has already been answered, and no one would seriously consider creating another fork when it would most likely end in failure.

I guess forks in the past have been mostly created in the thinking that they can improve on
the Bitcoin blockchain but thankfully it wasnt the case, biggest and baddest of all was
Bitcoin cash / Bitcoin Satoshi vision by Faketoshi.

[Taskford]

Can we create another BTC and name it BTC2?

There is already an altcoin in that name and even ran a bounty in the forum. So, every single thing that a random guy thinks of creating a new BTC and etc. it has already been mentioned in the past and they didn't become into reality. The altcoins market is too saturated at all and before I forget, there have been a lot of wrapped BTCs in so many networks so, there is no sense at all to have that much altcoins that are named and inspired after Bitcoin.

Maybe they are just dreaming to became the next satoshi if they create another shitcoin named as what OP mentioned. But in reality people will only support the real Bitcoin and the other one especially those new created will be trashed.

Also for sure that its hard for those people who create that token to market their creation also to convince people to believe it. If they push to create and do marketing then maybe they would just waste their money since for sure people will just think about that this is just another scam coin operated by unknown people.

So they better trash this thinking and just find some good ways on how they can contribute on Bitcoin ecosystem in good way.