What are the pro and con's about forking bitcoin?

[pereira4]

The biggest con to Bitcoin XT is the fact that Mike Hearn apparently wants to consolidate power over the blockchain via miners, and get the ability to freeze / blacklist bitcoins, as he mentions here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5979.0

I've been basically 100% Bitcoin for over 2 years now, but if that little proposal becomes reality, I'll be switching back to fiat immediately.

Yes, Hearn and Andresen are trying to do a power grab here that is a serious threat to Bitcoin as we know it. As they have stated more than once, privacy and decentralization are not their primary objective. They want adoption at any cost - even if that means Bitcoin will become effectively a Paypal 2.0.

The reddit crowd and many members here are cheering for a max_blocksize increase. They also want adoption at any cost, because they simply hope for a rapid increase in Bitcoin's value. However such kind of thinking is shortsighted and might ultimately lead to Bitcoin's death by allowing centralized control and surveillance of transactions by a limited number of full nodes.

People should remember the fate of The Bitcoin Foundation, which was founded by Gavin. The objections raised against an excessive max_blocksize increase are fully justified.

I will never support the Hearndresen-fork. But instead of switching to fiat I will stay with Bitcoin Core (bringing more nodes up).

Fork = Evolve and, Not Fork = Devolve

That's simply wrong. Most improvements do not need a hard-fork. A hard-fork without consensus does not signify evolution, it signifies separation. A hard-fork based on egoistic motives and/or false assumptions is devolution.

ya.ya.yo!


But you are assuming they will do a hard fork without consensus, which as far as I know is not the case.
They want the price to go as high as possible as high as possible, but they know that if they fork without consensus what they will get is the contrary.

[SebastianJu]

The biggest con to Bitcoin XT is the fact that Mike Hearn apparently wants to consolidate power over the blockchain via miners, and get the ability to freeze / blacklist bitcoins, as he mentions here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5979.0

I've been basically 100% Bitcoin for over 2 years now, but if that little proposal becomes reality, I'll be switching back to fiat immediately.

You obviously didn't understand what Mike Hearn writes there.
Freezing Bitcoin is theoretical possibly in the current system, if you have all miners on board. That is a fact. No fork needed for that.

You are right. Though when bitcoiners really will go ahead and give "their" bitcoin away to a private company, where the development of the blockchain and the wallet is decided to some private persons and that company, then why the heck should miners switch away later? First they take that offer, so i don't see many will switch later.

It's like a vote. If you chose bitcoin xt then you chose a company that will decide what will happen to the bitcoin wallet and the blockchain.

Hearn and co make so much trouble as if the remaining developers doesn't understand the problem. Of course they do. They only don't take part in that fear advertising campaign for a company bitcoin xt. Bitcoin core will be forked for sure. Its simply needed. No real developer will deny that. It only doesn't have to happen now instantly. We have time to find the best solution. But hearn let it sound like tomorrow bitcoin will die. And we all should give his company the power to rule about our coins.

I won't take part in this. But i fear the community is not so united. I fear a damage to the price of bitcoin. Though maybe bitcoin core gets patched fast and bitcoin xt is losing its momentum.

The difference to other votes is: You can always change it. When I like their current fork, I switch to them. If they make another fork, I don't like I can switch to another client. As long as it is open source, somebody can just take it and make their own version of it.
So, nobody gives anybody any control over future developments, just because he chooses their client once.

I think peligro already mentioned why it still will be a problem. When bitcoiners really would switch to bitcoin xt, knowing all the dangers to their coin, then its unlikely that they will switch again later. I mean they first accepted the downsides, they chose it even because of that. Why should the same bitcoiners do the opposite then? So i think he is right, it would mean a risk to our bitcoin.

And the scenario is real. I did not seldom read that some would wish a centralized ruler, just to take away the trouble of making decisions and the fights. Giving in to that might hurt bitcoin even when they switch back later.

Though we will see.

TL;DR: People who switch to XT are stupid and will keep stupid.

Is insults really everything so many people on this forum have?

Um... where do you read that in? I would prefer you accuse me only of things that i say actually. I pointed out the risks i see, nothing more, i didnt go around naming others.

By the way... it looks like i was wrong about the private company behind. Im not sure where i read that though i thought there is no reason to not believe it. Since bitcoin xt would have been an altcoin as soon as its forked and practically every altcoin had the issuer interest of making some profit behind.

[WhatTheGox]

Can anyone explain it to me? I really do not understand all the drama around it.
So if it forks everyone needs to update there wallet?
All coins and price remains? (so what is the problem?)

It could end up a big forking mistake if we dont get it right that for sure.  The forking idea may be a good one but its worrying because most people in the bitcoin community haven't had any forking experience.   

[thebenjamincode]

Major Pros: Faster confirmations, less fees, other businesses can use the extra space for new projects, etc.

Major Cons: Larger Full Node downloads, and more centralization, (because less people will use full node wallets and internet services will restrict connecting to more peers at one time).