Reasons to fork bitcoin in the future?

[digaran]

Is there any issues with bitcoin to fork it when they become a problem? why not find all the reasons that might require a fork some day and only fork it once and not few times?

[X7]

 a hard fork (or sometimes hardfork) is a radical change to the protocol that makes previously invalid blocks/transactions valid (or vice-versa), and as such requires all nodes or users to upgrade to the latest version of the protocol software.

The real danger is that the blockchain will split into two parallel blockchains. Miners, merchants, users (via wallets and other software), etc. that did not upgrade will support/use blockchain A and miners, merchants, users, etc. that did upgrade will support/use blockchain B.

Effectively there are now two bitcoin blockchains. The bitcoins that you had before the fork will exist in both blockchains A and B (they doubled!). A simplified example would be that: You can use your bitcoins from an old wallet and buy something from a merchant that uses old nodes. Then you can use a new wallet and buy something from a merchant that uses the new nodes with the same bitcoins. This is not even double spend since the chains are different.

However, what this also means is that the bitcoin users and community are also split. Each blockchain instead of having X nodes (the nodes before the split) that keep it secure will have X/2 nodes. Several merchants accept bitcoin but some accept version A and some version B... and so on. This is not user-friendly and it will cause much confusion. Something like that will shatter trust in the bitcoin network causing its price to diminish. Fear of future hard forks (splits) will diminish trust (and price) even more. So people will lose money indirectly since the value of bitcoin will more than likely tank

Given the entire Ethereum debacle in REAL practice where an apparent 90%+ of the network agreed with the change and we are still here with ETH losing more than half its value and ETH Classic in existence. We should tread very lightly when approaching this conversation for a digital asset which has far more value / adoption & ramification than Ethereum.

I would prefer we use Soft Forks where possible and move towards a system like Core has done with SegWit.

[nara1892]

Is there any issues with bitcoin to fork it when they become a problem? why not find all the reasons that might require a fork some day and only fork it once and not few times?

do you mean to fork bitcoin or to fork blockchain? and then if there is copy of it, what next? I am not really sure about that. probably it will be good idea sometimes to separate between two groups when a problem comes. so how do you separate between two groups who will use original one and copy of it?

[DooMAD]

why not find all the reasons that might require a fork some day and only fork it once and not few times?

Not all the potential reasons would have actionable elements yet.  For example, let's take quantum computing.  At some point in future, probably many years from now, a change will almost certainly need to be made to the encryption to make it quantum-proof.  We know this, but a quantum-proof algorithm hasn't been invented yet, so we can't implement that in a fork until someone makes that breakthrough.  There might be other unexpected events we've yet to foresee, so again, wouldn't have a solution to implement yet.  Obviously it's best to keep forks to a minimum, though, which is why I don't understand the fixation people seem to have with static blocksizes.  It's clearly something which should be flexible and algorithmically determined, so it only has to be forked once and not every time it needs changing.

I would prefer we use Soft Forks where possible and move towards a system like Core has done with SegWit.

It should be strongly emphasized that won't always be an option, though.  Soft forks can be done when adding new network rules or tightening existing ones.  If we ever need to loosen or remove network rules, it can only take the form of a hard fork.

[rapazev]

dude,
what if i told you bitcoin already have forks? 

lots of these altcoins are a bitcoins fork.
if you are talking about the real bitcoin being forked and used, well, the problem is the adoption. to fork bitcoin doing some changes to the code, if only a few nodes follow you, your fork dies.

[shinratensei_]

I would prefer we use Soft Forks where possible and move towards a system like Core has done with SegWit.

The Chinese were ignoring it. SegWit will have deactivated.
They may push it into the simple hardfork.
Does SegWit need consensus? I don't think so although they were running the explicit consensus.

HF more preferable to SF, 

[Xester]

There is no need to fork bitcoin. There will be great debates pertaining to that issue as to fork or not to fork. But the problem with forking is that many issues and factors to considered. It may possibly cause users and miners to shift to other altcoins if they decided to fork it. As I said two groups will rise the pro fork and the conservative, this means that bitcoin users will be divided in half like ethereum, ethereum and ethereum classic.

[digaran]

a hard fork (or sometimes hardfork) is a radical change to the protocol that makes previously invalid blocks/transactions valid (or vice-versa), and as such requires all nodes or users to upgrade to the latest version of the protocol software.

The real danger is that the blockchain will split into two parallel blockchains. Miners, merchants, users (via wallets and other software), etc. that did not upgrade will support/use blockchain A and miners, merchants, users, etc. that did upgrade will support/use blockchain B.

Effectively there are now two bitcoin blockchains. The bitcoins that you had before the fork will exist in both blockchains A and B (they doubled!). A simplified example would be that: You can use your bitcoins from an old wallet and buy something from a merchant that uses old nodes. Then you can use a new wallet and buy something from a merchant that uses the new nodes with the same bitcoins. This is not even double spend since the chains are different.

However, what this also means is that the bitcoin users and community are also split. Each blockchain instead of having X nodes (the nodes before the split) that keep it secure will have X/2 nodes. Several merchants accept bitcoin but some accept version A and some version B... and so on. This is not user-friendly and it will cause much confusion. Something like that will shatter trust in the bitcoin network causing its price to diminish. Fear of future hard forks (splits) will diminish trust (and price) even more. So people will lose money indirectly since the value of bitcoin will more than likely tank

Given the entire Ethereum debacle in REAL practice where an apparent 90%+ of the network agreed with the change and we are still here with ETH losing more than half its value and ETH Classic in existence. We should tread very lightly when approaching this conversation for a digital asset which has far more value / adoption & ramification than Ethereum.

I would prefer we use Soft Forks where possible and move towards a system like Core has done with SegWit.

I know exactly what you are talking about, but now who really has the ability to change the protocol and fork it? if it is consensus and must be agreed upon by several developers then who are they? and when and if it ever forks then who will be controlling the A blockchain? obviously the ones forking will continue to control the B blockchain. if ETH is being controlled by the foundation then who has the key to ETC?

[DooMAD]

but now who really has the ability to change the protocol and fork it? if it is consensus and must be agreed upon by several developers then who are they?

It's pretty much the biggest myth perpetuated on this forum that developers have anything whatsoever to do with consensus.  It has absolutely no bearing on what developers do or don't agree on, unless you're talking about a closed source coin, in which case they get to call the shots.  Consensus is what is agreed upon by those securing the network.  Anyone can release code and suggest a course of action (including a fork), but it's down to the users whether they decide to run that code, or decide on a different course of action.

[calkob]

Is there any issues with bitcoin to fork it when they become a problem? why not find all the reasons that might require a fork some day and only fork it once and not few times?

How can you know the problems in the future that might require a fork,  and Hard forks can cause their own problems also.

[franky1]

here we go with the fake doomsday crap yet again

a consensus fork only occurs when there is sufficient approval to move forward with new rules.
worse case is without majority approval we will see orphans. and a bit of drama as the orphan game plays out.

stop comparing bitcoin to ethereum.
ethereum done an intentional split by actually IGNORING consensus and ignoring opposing nodes.

wake up to reality and do some research a consensus upgrade wont cause 2 chains to co-exist.

no one is proposing a controversial split or a intentional split. however its the core devs that refuse to release code to allow consensus to grow and core devs telling non core devs to f**k off.

stop trying to scare people thinking/making people think consensual forks are dangerous, as all it is doing is making you sound desparate to hold back real bitcoin growth