Must Bitcoiners now "fork" like ancient tribes to survive ?

[PalmerLaura]

The two most sacred resources in Bitcoin — nodes and miners — have not grown at the rate of the “baby boom”
happening at the user base.

Why Bitcoin Should Fork Like a Hunter-Gatherer Tribe?

[BrianM]

Are you saying that miners have not grown the last couple of years?
You can't be serious, look at the network hashrate, this is where the true BOOM has been.

[neurotypical]

Im just hoping we don't need to divide as 2 different tribes, and the weakest trive eventually either dies or joins the bigger tribe, competition is useless in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

[joethejudge77]

Im just hoping we don't need to divide as 2 different tribes, and the weakest trive eventually either dies or joins the bigger tribe, competition is useless in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

There'll always be competition of a kind, like the Chinese having 60+ per cent of hashrate power today.

[shorena]

Interesting connection to sex at dawn and our genetical build in general, but I dont think its going to work that way here. The most important benefit of using bitcoin (or any other successful coin) is the network effect. Bitcoin is useful because other use and accept it. A new fork might not get adopted and thus dies off entirely. This would not be true for a tribe as long as we have enough space and resources for all the tribes. Now the time that we have enough space for everyones tribe is long gone and what keeps us alive and (somewhat) functional is cooperation that is not based on personal relationships. Same with bitcoin, most of us are not involved because of a personal relationship, but because of other reasons.

Crypto currency is essentially a winner takes all system as its not efficient to keep several blockchains for the same purpose.

[Bitshill]

Bitcoin is an expensive tech project doomed to fail.

[Bitcoinpro]

Bitcoin is an expensive tech project doomed to fail.

u sound quite experiencef in failed tech projects

could this be Gox posting

[SISAR]

The two most sacred resources in Bitcoin — nodes and miners — have not grown at the rate of the “baby boom”
happening at the user base.

Why Bitcoin Should Fork Like a Hunter-Gatherer Tribe?

Cryptocoin scene already forked to like 1,000 different coins with at least few hundred of them actively traded at exchanges. It would be useful if Bitcoiners finaly realise that decentralization of everything (not just nodes or mining) is a good thing and diversify more into altcoins, crypto assets and other crypto goodies.

[neoneros]

The anology is a nice find, love the cointelegraph picture too. But it is an anology that does not fit 100%. It goes without saying that: yes the organisational structure of the bitcoin foundation, the coders and the likes work a lot like tribes, having their ideas going in different directions will make them clash and a fork or two might be good. The basic idea, the bitcoin itself is a bit like the fire. you can make fire in lots of different ways, one tribe uses stones and tinder, the other one franticly rubs sticks, but it will always be fire. Bitcoin itself is too fundamental to be split up and diversed. Like fire, you can feed it to make it grow, you can split it up and have fire to take along and burn somewhere else.

[chennan]

Are you saying that miners have not grown the last couple of years?
You can't be serious, look at the network hashrate, this is where the true BOOM has been.

The network hashrate is increasing a lot, but hashing power is too centralized.  Chinese miners are having 60+ percent of hashrate power. It is not good to the overall network.

[Lauda]

The network hashrate is increasing a lot, but hashing power is too centralized.  Chinese miners are having 60+ percent of hashrate power. It is not good to the overall network.

It has increased*, recently it has slowed down or stopped due to profitability. You can view this in just about any chart.

The subject is very interesting. I guess we just couldn't reach an agreement because of the vast number of closed minded people. I don't even think that we should keep doing this, i.e. discussing the fork so many times as it is not really yielding any success. We're stuck between multiple sides who have different views of solving the problems. They aren't going to let in to the other side and this is where the problem had arisen.
Just think about it. If you're a supporter of side chains, lightning network and whatnot, there still is no reason for you to object 8 MB blocks (1 won't be enough eventually).

I'm eager to see what 2016 will bring us.

[Wexlike]

The network hashrate is increasing a lot, but hashing power is too centralized.  Chinese miners are having 60+ percent of hashrate power. It is not good to the overall network.

It has increased*, recently it has slowed down or stopped due to profitability. You can view this in just about any chart.

The subject is very interesting. I guess we just couldn't reach an agreement because of the vast number of closed minded people. I don't even think that we should keep doing this, i.e. discussing the fork so many times as it is not really yielding any success. We're stuck between multiple sides who have different views of solving the problems. They aren't going to let in to the other side and this is where the problem had arisen.
Just think about it. If you're a supporter of side chains, lightning network and whatnot, there still is no reason for you to object 8 MB blocks (1 won't be enough eventually).

I'm eager to see what 2016 will bring us.

To be honest, i am also a bit worried about the percentage that the chinese miners have of the network and their power of vote when it comes to the basic protocol.

[Velkro]

[/url]

Really beautiful graphics , i like it so much. Very detailed, pure art.
About article, interesting approach.

[NeuroticFish]

Fork is unfortunately the only way to go forward. But forking the chain should not mean a split between the "nodes" and the "miners". I think that this "option" is a little bit too .. "forced".

To be honest, i am also a bit worried about the percentage that the chinese miners have of the network and their power of vote when it comes to the basic protocol.

I hope that this will never become a real problem, though, it also worries me too.
There is always a fix, but nobody will like it: another fork, change of algo for an ASIC-resistant one, bring mining back to people.
(Of course, this may never work for real and it could crash the price too.)

[vrm86]

The only solution to resolve chinese participation in hashrate problem is to pay chinese government adequate bribe to ban BTC in China  

But seriously, they made profit from the main quality of Bitcoin - freedom. If chinese could find any opportunities in new forks, they wouldn't hesistate to take a chance once more.
Of course conditions for miners differs a lot between e.g. EU and China, but that is not their fault.

[Snorek]

The only solution to resolve chinese participation in hashrate problem is to pay chinese government adequate bribe to ban BTC in China  

But seriously, they made profit from the main quality of Bitcoin - freedom. If chinese could find any opportunities in new forks, they wouldn't hesistate to take a chance once more.
Of course conditions for miners differs a lot between e.g. EU and China, but that is not their fault.

We don't need bribes or any sort of additional incentive beside bitcoin itself. We need to make bitcoin great option for investing, good for mining, strong economy.
All we need to gather everyone around new fork is strong BTC, when bitcoin price will rise people will flock like crazy.

[Lauda]

To be honest, i am also a bit worried about the percentage that the chinese miners have of the network and their power of vote when it comes to the basic protocol.

I don't see it as such a big problem right now. As long as they only vote and aren't trying to force something upon the network it isn't that big of a deal. I don't think that they are going to abuse their position anytime soon however I do see your point.
Hopefully there will be a balance of miners in the future.

Fork is unfortunately the only way to go forward. But forking the chain should not mean a split between the "nodes" and the "miners". I think that this "option" is a little bit too .. "forced".

I hope that this will never become a real problem, though, it also worries me too.
There is always a fix, but nobody will like it: another fork, change of algo for an ASIC-resistant one, bring mining back to people.
(Of course, this may never work for real and it could crash the price too.)

That's not even a temporary fix. ASIC = application-specific integrated circuit; even if we introduce a algorithm that was currently resistant, that would probably change pretty quickly.
Besides, nobody would allow such a bold move. Stop suggesting such nonsense.

[Argwai96]

Most of this issues are now coming along since the block size increase proposal, i suggest to have some of this niners and node runners to watch the stress test on jun 29  to understand a bit more why is needed if bitcoin wants to be future proof.

[vrm86]

The only solution to resolve chinese participation in hashrate problem is to pay chinese government adequate bribe to ban BTC in China  

But seriously, they made profit from the main quality of Bitcoin - freedom. If chinese could find any opportunities in new forks, they wouldn't hesistate to take a chance once more.
Of course conditions for miners differs a lot between e.g. EU and China, but that is not their fault.

We don't need bribes or any sort of additional incentive beside bitcoin itself. We need to make bitcoin great option for investing, good for mining, strong economy.
All we need to gather everyone around new fork is strong BTC, when bitcoin price will rise people will flock like crazy.

If bitcoin is good coin to mine for you or me, for Chinese it is even better. The problem is that hashing power distribution plays major role in bitcoin network functioning. If it would be more related to the transactions (that are occuring world wide) it'd be far better for BTC (decentralization).