How I learned to stop worrying and love the fork

[Meni Rosenfeld]

(Cross-post from my blog)

It’s hot in Israel in August, but not nearly as hot as the global debate surrounding the release of Bitcoin-XT and the contentious hard fork that would ensue if enough people adopt it. It seems that both proponents and opponents of Bitcoin-XT dread the possibility of the network splitting in two, and focus on making sure everyone switches to their side to prevent this from happening. Contrary to this post’s title, I don’t actually like the prospect of a fork; but I do claim that having two networks coexist side-by-side is a real possibility, that it is not the end of the world, and that we should spend more energy on preparing for this contingency.



It’s possible

Let’s start with the feasibility of this. The ways this could unfold, in decreasing order of my estimate for their likelihood, are:

1. Bitcoin-XT will not reach the threshold required to actually diverge from the current Bitcoin on the blockchain level within a reasonable time, and we will meet again for round two of the debate.
2. Bitcoin-XT will form a separate blockchain and network in or near January 2016.
3. A compromise will be reached which will make Bitcoin-XT obsolete as a separate initiative.
4. Bitcoin users will, virtually unanimously, switch to Bitcoin-XT.

Option #4 was included for completeness, but in my opinion is pretty much impossible. There is too much disagreement about the technical issues, the change in governance, and the bold forking attempt for everyone to just drop everything and tag along. The prospects for compromise (#3) look grim at the moment, the gap in philosophies seems to large to bridge. #1 is highly likely – Bitcoin-XT has support, but I don’t think enough to pass the 75% threshold. But if it does have enough… We find ourselves in scenario #2 – the unprecedented event of a significant cryptocurrency having its network, blockchain and community split in two.

It’s (relatively) safe

Is it bad? Well, yeah. First, Vires in Numeris – Bitcoin is subject to strong network effects, and two networks of roughly half the size are not as strong as one big network. Second, there’s bound to be confusion all around, with two separate currencies each claiming to be the one true Bitcoin. Third, people will think that it is bad (for both real and imagined reasons) and lose faith, stunting Bitcoin’s growth.

How bad? Let’s analyze the short-term effects from the point of view of three types of Bitcoin users:

1. The merchant that accepts Bitcoin payments. He doesn’t have to do anything about this, at all. He teams up with his favorite payment processor, as he did before, and let the processor, and the Bitcoin enthusiast that will pay him, work out the details.
2. The Bitcoin investor. If she bought bitcoins before the fork, she needn’t do anything at all. If she bought 1000 bitcoins, she will now have 1000 coins on the Bitcoin core network and 1000 coins on the Bitcoin-XT network. Whether the currency that will survive is one, the other, or both, her investment is safe.
3. The Bitcoin enthusiast. He will probably have to carry two Bitcoin wallets around (or a special wallet that separately manages funds for both networks), and whenever he wants to pay with Bitcoin, he may have to figure out which version of Bitcoin the recipient expects. That’s extra work and trouble. But it’s okay, he can deal with it. He’s an enthusiast.

I will talk more about longer-term prospects in the section about preparing for the fork. But for now I’d like to say a few more words about confusion. Often I’m frustrated by the obscene amount of misinformation about Bitcoin that is spread around, and then I realize that… That’s not a unique problem for Bitcoin. The world is full of ignorance, misinformation, disinformation, persistent myths, propaganda, misnomers, downright confusion, and simply people who are wrong. Humanity still haven’t figured out an efficient way to organize the world’s knowledge in a way that is accessible and reliable. And yet earth hasn’t exploded yet. We get by. We study the things we truly care about, we understand meaning from context, and we make the most out of the information available to us. So I doubt making the Bitcoin ecosystem a bit more confusing will make it collapse.

This and other concerns will, of course, have a negative impact – but they’re little more than bumps on Bitcoin’s road to success, of which Bitcoin has already had plenty and will have many more.

Furthermore, a fork was in some ways inevitable. Remember that nothing like Bitcoin was ever done before. We had physical currencies, where the rules were determined by physical laws; and we had centralized currencies, where the rules were set by a predetermined, trusted (even if untrustworthy) 3rd party. But a decentralized digital currency? That’s a strange beast, and we all signed up to the notion that what keeps it intact is consensus among people. But it is presumptuous to expect that all of humanity will agree on all the rules all the time. There are differing opinions and philosophies, and when those manifest, camps will part ways. Much like living organisms, cryptocurrencies will replicate. They will compete. They will die. They will survive. They will evolve. And in so doing, they will become stronger.

And I’m not saying, of course, that it’s good that we’re forking right now. We should still try to prevent it if at all possible. But a fork is bound to happen sometime (even if for wholly unrelated reasons), so we may as well gain some experience about the process. We could learn that forks are terrible and we should never let them happen again… Or that forks are great and we should do them all the time… We could learn how to prevent or prepare for future forks, Or we may learn something else entirely. It may be more chaotic than hoping that the mere fear of a fork will keep everyone together, but it’s certainly less rigid and fragile, and more flexible.

We should prepare

So how should the fork unfold? Ideally, the changed version (Bitcoin-XT in this case) will have a different transaction structure for txs that take place after the blockchain split, so that transactions on one network will never be valid on the other, and vice versa. Unfortunately, I have seen no indication that such a thing exists or is planned for Bitcoin-XT (a major red mark for its developers, by the way, assuming there is nothing I missed), so things might get a bit messier. Left to their own devices, transactions might be accepted by one network, the other, or both, and it’s difficult to control which.

A prudent user will consider the currencies as separate, starting from the block where the chain splits. Each will have its own balances, its own exchange rate against other currencies, its own list of places that accept it, etc. But he will need to be careful not to send currency A, and have his transaction accidentally picked up by network B, which will result in him losing his coins B without compensation from the receiver, who never requested coins B.

To do this he will need to decouple his coins into their components. The way to do this is to get some coins generated as coinbase in a post-split block (or coins that can have some trace of those) – those will function as a collapse agent, since they are valid in only one of the networks, say A. Then he will send all his coins – both pre-split UTXOs with his savings, and the post-split collapse agent – to himself. This transaction will only be vaild in network A, so in the receiving address he will have a coin (UTXO) with the total of his balance, that is strictly of currency A. Once this transaction is confirmed, his original UTXO is collapsed into currency B, since in network A they were already spent. Then he can manage his currency with two separate wallets, knowing for certain which currency he sends at any given time.

If he stores coins in a paper wallet, he needn’t worry about it at first. He can extract and decouple the coins at any time. Waiting has the added benefit that one of the networks might die by then, meaning he can claim the coins in the only network that matters without extra effort.

Of course, all of this might be too cumbersome for typical users. Ideally, there will be exchanges and wallet services supporting both currencies which can facilitate the process. Users of these services will have a separate balance for coin A and coin B. The user can simply send coins to his deposit address for the service. The wallet will credit the user’s balance for coin A, B or both depending on which networks acknowledge the transaction. The wallet will then hold superposed coins, and will decouple them as above. When the user wishes to withdraw funds, he will separately withdraw each currency to different wallets, and the service will make to sure to send him only decoupled coins. Then, again, he can know for certain which coins he has in which wallet, and use each to pay when appropriate.

If the user has strong beliefs favoring one currency or another, he can use the exchange to sell just the other currency. He can then even use the funds to buy more of his favorite currency.

The Bitcoin URI for requesting payments should include information about which coin is expected. This will be used by merchants and so on, according to the preference of their payment services provider. The user who wishes to pay can use the information to pay with the correct wallet.

Ideally, smart wallets will be developed which hold both coins A and coins B, and when given a payment request, automatically send the correct type. For example, if we are buying a product worth $280, a bitcoin A is worth $140, and a Bitcoin B is worth $70, the merchant will display either a request for 2 bitcoins A (worth $280) or a request for 4 bitcoins B (worth $280), according to the merchant’s preference. The user will just scan it as normal and have the wallet send it. Users doesn’t really need to worry about it – it suffices to make sure he always carries around both types, assuming he’s expecting to find merchants accepting either type.

Going forward, one of two things can happen:

1. One the currencies will be significantly less popular than the other. It will see less merchants accepting it, its exchange rate will drop, and its technology will develop slowly. Users will be disillusioned by this and migrate to the other currency. Eventually it will for all intents and purposes disappear, and the popular currency will rise as the one true pretender to the Bitcoin throne.
2. Both currencies will enjoy a significant following, forever (or until the heat death of the universe, or whatever). Each will have its own advantages and disadvantages, and people can freely choose between using one, the other, or both. In this case, it is not sufficient to have software and services to handle the plurality seamlessly – the name ambiguity should be resolved, and it will be prudent for the less popular currency (measured by market cap if no better metric is found) to give way, change its name, and finish its cycle of separating from the other currency.

It will be a bit messy, but we can handle it. A fork in the road is not the end of the world.

[BTCOFFEE]

(Cross-post from my blog)

It’s hot in Israel in August, but not nearly as hot as the global debate surrounding the release of Bitcoin-XT and the contentious hard fork that would ensue if enough people adopt it. It seems that both proponents and opponents of Bitcoin-XT dread the possibility of the network splitting in two, and focus on making sure everyone switches to their side to prevent this from happening. Contrary to this post’s title, I don’t actually like the prospect of a fork; but I do claim that having two networks coexist side-by-side is a real possibility, that it is not the end of the world, and that we should spend more energy on preparing for this contingency.

http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2015-03/26/19/enhanced/webdr06/enhanced-25942-1427414324-7.jpg

It’s possible

Let’s start with the feasibility of this. The ways this could unfold, in decreasing order of my estimate for their likelihood, are:

1. Bitcoin-XT will not reach the threshold required to actually diverge from the current Bitcoin on the blockchain level within a reasonable time, and we will meet again for round two of the debate.
2. Bitcoin-XT will form a separate blockchain and network in or near January 2016.
3. A compromise will be reached which will make Bitcoin-XT obsolete as a separate initiative.
4. Bitcoin users will, virtually unanimously, switch to Bitcoin-XT.

Option #4 was included for completeness, but in my opinion is pretty much impossible. There is too much disagreement about the technical issues, the change in governance, and the bold forking attempt for everyone to just drop everything and tag along. The prospects for compromise (#3) look grim at the moment, the gap in philosophies seems to large to bridge. #1 is highly likely – Bitcoin-XT has support, but I don’t think enough to pass the 75% threshold. But if it does have enough… We find ourselves in scenario #2 – the unprecedented event of a significant cryptocurrency having its network, blockchain and community split in two.

It’s (relatively) safe

Is it bad? Well, yeah. First, Vires in Numeris – Bitcoin is subject to strong network effects, and two networks of roughly half the size are not as strong as one big network. Second, there’s bound to be confusion all around, with two separate currencies each claiming to be the one true Bitcoin. Third, people will think that it is bad (for both real and imagined reasons) and lose faith, stunting Bitcoin’s growth.

How bad? Let’s analyze the short-term effects from the point of view of three types of Bitcoin users:

1. The merchant that accepts Bitcoin payments. He doesn’t have to do anything about this, at all. He teams up with his favorite payment processor, as he did before, and let the processor, and the Bitcoin enthusiast that will pay him, work out the details.
2. The Bitcoin investor. If she bought bitcoins before the fork, she needn’t do anything at all. If she bought 1000 bitcoins, she will now have 1000 coins on the Bitcoin core network and 1000 coins on the Bitcoin-XT network. Whether the currency that will survive is one, the other, or both, her investment is safe.
3. The Bitcoin enthusiast. He will probably have to carry two Bitcoin wallets around (or a special wallet that separately manages funds for both networks), and whenever he wants to pay with Bitcoin, he may have to figure out which version of Bitcoin the recipient expects. That’s extra work and trouble. But it’s okay, he can deal with it. He’s an enthusiast.

I will talk more about longer-term prospects in the section about preparing for the fork. But for now I’d like to say a few more words about confusion. Often I’m frustrated by the obscene amount of misinformation about Bitcoin that is spread around, and then I realize that… That’s not a unique problem for Bitcoin. The world is full of ignorance, misinformation, disinformation, persistent myths, propaganda, misnomers, downright confusion, and simply people who are wrong. Humanity still haven’t figured out an efficient way to organize the world’s knowledge in a way that is accessible and reliable. And yet earth hasn’t exploded yet. We get by. We study the things we truly care about, we understand meaning from context, and we make the most out of the information available to us. So I doubt making the Bitcoin ecosystem a bit more confusing will make it collapse.

This and other concerns will, of course, have a negative impact – but they’re little more than bumps on Bitcoin’s road to success, of which Bitcoin has already had plenty and will have many more.

Furthermore, a fork was in some ways inevitable. Remember that nothing like Bitcoin was ever done before. We had physical currencies, where the rules were determined by physical laws; and we had centralized currencies, where the rules were set by a predetermined, trusted (even if untrustworthy) 3rd party. But a decentralized digital currency? That’s a strange beast, and we all signed up to the notion that what keeps it intact is consensus among people. But it is presumptuous to expect that all of humanity will agree on all the rules all the time. There are differing opinions and philosophies, and when those manifest, camps will part ways. Much like living organisms, cryptocurrencies will replicate. They will compete. They will die. They will survive. They will evolve. And in so doing, they will become stronger.

And I’m not saying, of course, that it’s good that we’re forking right now. We should still try to prevent it if at all possible. But a fork is bound to happen sometime (even if for wholly unrelated reasons), so we may as well gain some experience about the process. We could learn that forks are terrible and we should never let them happen again… Or that forks are great and we should do them all the time… We could learn how to prevent or prepare for future forks, Or we may learn something else entirely. It may be more chaotic than hoping that the mere fear of a fork will keep everyone together, but it’s certainly less rigid and fragile, and more flexible.

We should prepare

So how should the fork unfold? Ideally, the changed version (Bitcoin-XT in this case) will have a different transaction structure for txs that take place after the blockchain split, so that transactions on one network will never be valid on the other, and vice versa. Unfortunately, I have seen no indication that such a thing exists or is planned for Bitcoin-XT (a major red mark for its developers, by the way, assuming there is nothing I missed), so things might get a bit messier. Left to their own devices, transactions might be accepted by one network, the other, or both, and it’s difficult to control which.

A prudent user will consider the currencies as separate, starting from the block where the chain splits. Each will have its own balances, its own exchange rate against other currencies, its own list of places that accept it, etc. But he will need to be careful not to send currency A, and have his transaction accidentally picked up by network B, which will result in him losing his coins B without compensation from the receiver, who never requested coins B.

To do this he will need to decouple his coins into their components. The way to do this is to get some coins generated as coinbase in a post-split block (or coins that can have some trace of those) – those will function as a collapse agent, since they are valid in only one of the networks, say A. Then he will send all his coins – both pre-split UTXOs with his savings, and the post-split collapse agent – to himself. This transaction will only be vaild in network A, so in the receiving address he will have a coin (UTXO) with the total of his balance, that is strictly of currency A. Once this transaction is confirmed, his original UTXO is collapsed into currency B, since in network A they were already spent. Then he can manage his currency with two separate wallets, knowing for certain which currency he sends at any given time.

If he stores coins in a paper wallet, he needn’t worry about it at first. He can extract and decouple the coins at any time. Waiting has the added benefit that one of the networks might die by then, meaning he can claim the coins in the only network that matters without extra effort.

Of course, all of this might be too cumbersome for typical users. Ideally, there will be exchanges and wallet services supporting both currencies which can facilitate the process. Users of these services will have a separate balance for coin A and coin B. The user can simply send coins to his deposit address for the service. The wallet will credit the user’s balance for coin A, B or both depending on which networks acknowledge the transaction. The wallet will then hold superposed coins, and will decouple them as above. When the user wishes to withdraw funds, he will separately withdraw each currency to different wallets, and the service will make to sure to send him only decoupled coins. Then, again, he can know for certain which coins he has in which wallet, and use each to pay when appropriate.

If the user has strong beliefs favoring one currency or another, he can use the exchange to sell just the other currency. He can then even use the funds to buy more of his favorite currency.

The Bitcoin URI for requesting payments should include information about which coin is expected. This will be used by merchants and so on, according to the preference of their payment services provider. The user who wishes to pay can use the information to pay with the correct wallet.

Ideally, smart wallets will be developed which hold both coins A and coins B, and when given a payment request, automatically send the correct type. For example, if we are buying a product worth $280, a bitcoin A is worth $140, and a Bitcoin B is worth $70, the merchant will display either a request for 2 bitcoins A (worth $280) or a request for 4 bitcoins B (worth $280), according to the merchant’s preference. The user will just scan it as normal and have the wallet send it. Users doesn’t really need to worry about it – it suffices to make sure he always carries around both types, assuming he’s expecting to find merchants accepting either type.

Going forward, one of two things can happen:

1. One the currencies will be significantly less popular than the other. It will see less merchants accepting it, its exchange rate will drop, and its technology will develop slowly. Users will be disillusioned by this and migrate to the other currency. Eventually it will for all intents and purposes disappear, and the popular currency will rise as the one true pretender to the Bitcoin throne.
2. Both currencies will enjoy a significant following, forever (or until the heat death of the universe, or whatever). Each will have its own advantages and disadvantages, and people can freely choose between using one, the other, or both. In this case, it is not sufficient to have software and services to handle the plurality seamlessly – the name ambiguity should be resolved, and it will be prudent for the less popular currency (measured by market cap if no better metric is found) to give way, change its name, and finish its cycle of separating from the other currency.

It will be a bit messy, but we can handle it. A fork in the road is not the end of the world.

yes i'm thinking the same thing two chains side-by-side will be EXCELLENT for everyone !
~ keep calm and BTC ;-) *eZ^$$$

[meono]

-snip-

yes i'm thinking the same thing two chains side-by-side will be EXCELLENT for everyone !
~ keep calm and BTC ;-) *eZ^$$$

Short term gain for a long term loss?

If 2 chains side by side occurs , bitcoin as we know is dead. No one will touch it.

[jonald_fyookball]

Meni, What you think is the least likely , I think is the most likely, although it won't
necessarily be called XT.  Pools are already signing blocks in support of Bip 101 and Bip 100.
Miners will increasingly switch to these pools because most people really do want bigger
blocks.  

Blockstream/Coredev people want 1mb because its suits their business model,
but they are already being shouted down as
pools and big companies show their support for bigger blocks.

But we shall see.

[CounterEntropy]

Technically we can handle fork. In fact, we have handled it before. But, a fork means down market, which is bad.

On a side note, I see, some extremely promising bitcoin block size proposal like https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154536.0, are being ignored by core devs. I dont understand, is there any rule that the solution of block size debate must come from the five core devs and everyone else will be summarily ignored ?

[monsanto]

Yeah I started a thread about something similar the other day:

Why not just make BitcoinXT a separate coin?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1160256.msg12223435#msg12223435

Although I think it would be better just to fork it now and try to build a following rather than the way they are going about it.

[jonald_fyookball]

Yeah I started a thread about something similar the other day:

Why not just make BitcoinXT a separate coin?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1160256.msg12223435#msg12223435

Although I think it would be better just to fork it now and try to build a following rather than the way they are going about it.

There is zero support for that idea.  I challenge you to name one person on the forum who wants to have BitctoinXT as a separate coin.

(On the other hand, several major pools are signing blocks supporting bips and bigger blocks and major bitcoin companies
signed a join statement supporting it as well.)

[tvbcof]

Yeah I started a thread about something similar the other day:

Why not just make BitcoinXT a separate coin?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1160256.msg12223435#msg12223435

Although I think it would be better just to fork it now and try to build a following rather than the way they are going about it.

There is zero support for that idea.  I challenge you to name one person on the forum who wants to have BitctoinXT as a separate coin.

(On the other hand, several major pools are signing blocks supporting bips and bigger blocks and major bitcoin companies
signed a join statement supporting it as well.)

I do.  Doesn't matter that much what I want though; separate coins are inevitable if XT forks the blockchain.  Or BIP101 for that matter.  I envision a strong possibility that there will be way more than two as people jumping on the bandwagon and exploit the confusion.

[jonald_fyookball]

Yeah I started a thread about something similar the other day:

Why not just make BitcoinXT a separate coin?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1160256.msg12223435#msg12223435

Although I think it would be better just to fork it now and try to build a following rather than the way they are going about it.

There is zero support for that idea.  I challenge you to name one person on the forum who wants to have BitctoinXT as a separate coin.

(On the other hand, several major pools are signing blocks supporting bips and bigger blocks and major bitcoin companies
signed a join statement supporting it as well.)

I do.  Doesn't matter that much what I want though; separate coins are inevitable if XT forks the blockchain.  Or BIP101 for that matter.  I envision a strong possibility that there will be way more than two as people jumping on the bandwagon and exploit the confusion.

So you would buy Bitcoin XT if it was a separate coin?  I probably should have said there is zero demand for that.
The only people that support it want the XT supporters to 'go away'.  The big block supporters and people who want
to run XT -- none of them want a separate coin.

[danielW]

If XT forks ...

A split is almost certain to occur as some people will not accept Gavins/Hearns coin.

Some segment of people will stay on the Bitcoin core chain which will mean it will have economic value.

So miners will mine it because there is profit to be made.

Service Providers will provide services because there is money to be made.

This is not winner takes all.

Looking at History, the Sunni/Shia split, the Protestant/Catholic, Catholic/ Orthodox etc split were not winner take all. This does not have to be.
It might not be in the economic interest to have a split. When humans argue tho, they often do things that are not in their economic interest. That is the history of the world. Civil wars exist.

[danielW]

Two separate chains is a very realistic possibility and gets more likely as time goes by. Both sides are becoming more entrenched in their positions and refuse to back down. The arguments are getting more heated and angry and personal.


Its is now also an issue of ego/influence/pride for any side to back down.

[tvbcof]

So you would buy Bitcoin XT if it was a separate coin?  I probably should have said there is zero demand for that.
The only people that support it want the XT supporters to 'go away'.  The big block supporters and people who want
to run XT -- none of them want a separate coin.

I want XT supporters to 'go away', but send me money for my XTCoins which I obtained pre-fork.

I might even find reason to obtain XTCoins if XT were implemented as a sidechain.  The most likely reason I could see for wanting some is that XT might be what Google Wallet supports.  I don't actually have a Google Wallet, but I might get one if I got 'cash back' for buying shit advertised on one of their properties or something.

[tvbcof]

Transplant from another thread:

...
network... The payment processors and the exchanges fuel the market for Bitcoin. Should we not support the side with no personal interest? Where is the 3rd alternative?

An amicable fork of the code AND of the blockchain.  Just let both (or all) sides move into the future and riding on their own 'longest valid chain' and the strength of their ideas, participants, and philosophies.

Yes, people who already had a footprint in the pre-fork chain 'win second prize in the beauty contest', but it's not like early-birds never catch a break.  No harm done to those who come later...they simply have more choices in the market and can choose a philosophy which is succeeding at giving them what they want.

IMO this is the most probable end game scenario. I would be curious of your definition of an "amicable" fork though.

I just mean agreed to and transparently communicated to the userbase.

 - Mike and Gavin state their case and their vision and their plans.

 - Other players (esp, so-called 'core') do likewise.

 - All sides agree not to attack one another, at least during a choreographed disengagement.

This would allow a framework upon which tertiary players (on-line wallets, miners, vendors, etc) could formulate and communicate their own strategies with minimal harm done to the userbases.  It would also lesson the problem we will certainly be having with scammers and others trying to exploit a messy situation.  Such attacks will target innocent end-users since they are the least able to defend themselves.

Maybe someone should write a BSP (Bitcoin Separation Proposal) for this.

[Carlton Banks]

Endorsed.

[Bit_Happy]

Bitcoin has forked before and the other one died, correct?

Two separate chains is a very realistic possibility and gets more likely as time goes by. Both sides are becoming more entrenched in their positions and refuse to back down. The arguments are getting more heated and angry and personal.


Its is now also an issue of ego/influence/pride for any side to back down.

If there is enough support for the fork (70%+ ?), then the other one will die fast because the "only real party in town" is winning?
If they have a few users "like MySpace still does", who really cares?

[tvbcof]

Bitcoin has forked before and the other one died, correct?

Two separate chains is a very realistic possibility and gets more likely as time goes by. Both sides are becoming more entrenched in their positions and refuse to back down. The arguments are getting more heated and angry and personal.

Its is now also an issue of ego/influence/pride for any side to back down.

If there is enough support for the fork (70%+ ?), then the other one will die fast because the "only real party in town" is winning?
If they have a few users "like MySpace still does", who really cares?

Nobody has provided anything more than an assertion that a slightly stronger fork would kill off a slightly weaker one, much less do so 'fast'.  If you wish to try to justify that hypothesis, please do.

WRT MySpace, different situation entirely.  The two extremes on the philosophical spectrum ('rock solid distributed security' vs. 'be everything to everyone') offer vastly different capabilities to serve vastly different use-cases.  The world is expansive enough to support multiple of these forks.

[megadeth]

A successful fork could set the precedent for
1) Governments to Fork the ledger and slap their own KYC/AML infrastructure on top of it. This includes purchasing & running mining equipment for this fork.
2) Companies to fork the ledger in order to provide some integration like tvbcof mentions above about Xtcoins/Google wallet.

I'm seriously doubting why alts need to exist even though I own some.
I'm supportive of this as long as it is done in a technically sustainable way. (eg. BSP Bitcoin Separation Protocol as mentioned above)
It's definitely a good idea to take a position sooner rather than later and this could create some excellent profit opportunities when the fork(s) happen. I encourage all Bitcoin users to educate themselves on constructing transactions now to take advantage of these events.

[tvbcof]

A successful fork could set the precedent for
1) Governments to Fork the ledger and slap their own KYC/AML infrastructure on top of it. This includes purchasing & running mining equipment for this fork.
2) Companies to fork the ledger in order to provide some integration like tvbcof mentions above about Xtcoins/Google wallet.

I'm fully expecting this to be the trajectory for XT/BIP101/whatever in the case of a fork.  We'll have our work cut out for us to avoid having it be the trajectory for Core one way or another.  Part of why I would like to see a fork is that I think the pressure to integrate crypto into mainstreamland will be relieved by having XT(-like) systems to escape through.

My dirty little secret is that I could see XT being quite successful as it moves through it's evolution and I probably will not completely split and liquidate my entire stash of them.  I myself even have use for a solution which has all the bells and whistles that the large corporates can tack on, and I have no philosophical or operational problem with paying my taxes...and my BTC are demonstrably clean.

I will also mention again that it's mostly us freaks who even consider KYC/AML/Taint/etc to be a bad thing.  Back in the real world, and even in significant pockets of the crypto-enthusiast space, these ideas are fairly obvious and fairly good.  That was my take-away from the San Jose conference a few years ago.

I'm seriously doubting why alts need to exist even though I own some.
I'm supportive of this as long as it is done in a technically sustainable way. (eg. BSP Bitcoin Separation Protocol as mentioned above)
It's definitely a good idea to take a position sooner rather than later and this could create some excellent profit opportunities when the fork(s) happen.

Could be.  I would only recommend it to those who are highly clever...but then that's the only group I mentioned Bitcoin to in the first place.

[countryfree]

I wish I could be optimist but I'm not. I see the coming fork (if it comes) as a huge image problem. Investors will not move till this issue is settled. BTC's quite low, and nobody shall expect it move up before that Damocles sword is being put away for good. BTC's price will remain low, and number transactions will not change much. BTC deserves better!

I wish I could do something to bring a compromise.

[MarketNeutral]

I wish I could be optimist but I'm not. I see the coming fork (if it comes) as a huge image problem. Investors will not move till this issue is settled. BTC's quite low, and nobody shall expect it move up before that Damocles sword is being put away for good. BTC's price will remain low, and number transactions will not change much. BTC deserves better!

I wish I could do something to bring a compromise.

This is true.
I work in high finance and whereas previously people approached me in confidence to ask how they can purchase bitcoins, now people approach me in confidence to ask me if this is the end of bitcoin.

Indeed Bitcoin deserves better.