Why hard forks are good for Bitcoin

[deisik]

This is just another theory, but it seems to be pretty consistent

So why hard forks are good for Bitcoin in the long run? In short, because they allow to get rid of rogue miners. Yesterday I read a letter signed by major cryptocurrency exchanges, and they declared that they would list Bitcoin forks (if such should emerge) as just any other altcoin out there. Basically, it means that any attempts to hard fork Bitcoin will massively and almost instantaneously backfire on those supporting them. People will naturally stick to the trusted version, and treacherous miners will be wasting their resources on mining a useless and worthless coin. In this way, they will necessarily leave the grand pool of genuine Bitcoin miners, and there will be more consensus between those who will remain in respect to future evolution of Bitcoin. Thus, those pools which support hard forks will voluntarily leave the scene and free space for other miners, likely more friendly toward gradual development of Bitcoin. That's why hard forks will come out as good for Bitcoin in the long haul

[1715002027]

1715002027

[OROBTC]

...

deisik

Another interesting topic.  Thanks.

Would you post a link to the paper that you read?  That would probably be of interest to those of us who do not fully understand various pieces of the SW v. BU debate as well as the risks of forks (hard and soft).

*  *  *

I continue to be dismayed that the BTC core developers and miners do not seem to be able to resolve the various problems of Bitcoin that plague us.  It seems childish.  Perhaps all the major players should be locked into a room (like the Cardinals at a Papal Conclave) until they resolve this...

And we all would hope that if/when they resolve these current issues that they think ahead as well: get a permanent solution/path to upgrading the Bitcoin Ecosystem in the future.  We would hate to go through this all over again in five years due to (more) shortsighted thinking.



EDIT: I did not vote because my knowledge of the issue is too limited.

[Vaccinus]

i don't like hard fork they route away from the original idea, they are like saying that anyone can change the original code, and make the whole project not serious anymore, it's better to have other option to fix our issue if possible, because if we start to change everything bitcoin would be just a bad coin

[deisik]

Another interesting topic.  Thanks

You are welcome

Would you post a link to the paper that you read?  That would probably be of interest to those of us who do not fully understand various pieces of the SW v. BU debate as well as the risks of forks (hard and soft)

You can read it here

I continue to be dismayed that the BTC core developers and miners do not seem to be able to resolve the various problems of Bitcoin that plague us.  It seems childish.  Perhaps all the major players should be locked into a room (like the Cardinals at a Papal Conclave) until they resolve this...

I don't really think this is required

Cardinals still have an authority represented by Pope himself, so they have no other choice but to come to an agreement either way, sooner or later. Obviously, this is not the case with miners and developers. And I think this is in fact good all in all since they still would not agree on anything. And going the hard way with hard forks may turn out beneficial in the long run. As I said, miners that would support a hard fork will stop mining Bitcoin, therefore someone else will come in and take their place. Quite naturally, their slot will be taken by those supporting Bitcoin, so we will move closer to a consensus. It is sort of natural selection, and this letter signed by exchanges will likely be a great divide for the hesitant and doubtful, i.e. whom they are going to stick to

[sergeyzol]

Maybe it's good in the long run.
But now...
Many users do not have deep knowledge in this area. I'm among them. When I read the letter from the representatives of the exchanges, I was horrified. It seemed to me that all my savings would simply depreciate. My reaction was predictable - I decided to sell bitcoin. But I resisted.
This suggests that such decisions are frightening for most users. Because of this, bitcoin becomes unstable. This is not the rule. After all, we are striving for stability.

[CyberKuro]

This is just another theory, but it seems to be pretty consistent

So why hard forks are good for Bitcoin in the long run? In short, because they allow to get rid of rogue miners. Yesterday I read a letter signed by major cryptocurrency exchanges, and they declared that they would list Bitcoin forks (if such should emerge) as just any other altcoin out there. Basically, it means that any attempts to hard fork Bitcoin will massively and almost instantaneously backfire on those supporting them. People will naturally stick to the trusted version, and treacherous miners will be wasting their resources on mining a useless and worthless coin. In this way, they will necessarily leave the grand pool of genuine Bitcoin miners, and there will be more consensus between those who will remain in respect to future evolution of Bitcoin. Thus, those pools which support hard forks will voluntarily leave the scene and free space for other miners, likely more friendly toward gradual development of Bitcoin. That's why hard forks will come out as good for Bitcoin in the long haul

There will be always good and bad side of this matter if it really happen which leads to we have btc ànd btu.
I do agree, it maybe good for bitcoin but it takes time. What about miners who proceed all those transaction? I don't get it, whether they will generate block for btc or btu or even both of it? Is that mean, bitcoin fees will increase as too many transaction per second but few miners since they parted.

[megynacuna]

Maybe it's good in the long run.
But now...
Many users do not have deep knowledge in this area. I'm among them. When I read the letter from the representatives of the exchanges, I was horrified. It seemed to me that all my savings would simply depreciate. My reaction was predictable - I decided to sell bitcoin. But I resisted.
This suggests that such decisions are frightening for most users. Because of this, bitcoin becomes unstable. This is not the rule. After all, we are striving for stability.

Well the knowledgeable ones are those fighting not the opposite. That means there's something technically wrong somewhere but as to who's telling the truth we don't know until it's tried so why do we waste more time arguing? Let's reach a consensus and try all the possible solutions one after the other for a month each and decide on what to settle on afterwards.

[deisik]

This is just another theory, but it seems to be pretty consistent

So why hard forks are good for Bitcoin in the long run? In short, because they allow to get rid of rogue miners. Yesterday I read a letter signed by major cryptocurrency exchanges, and they declared that they would list Bitcoin forks (if such should emerge) as just any other altcoin out there. Basically, it means that any attempts to hard fork Bitcoin will massively and almost instantaneously backfire on those supporting them. People will naturally stick to the trusted version, and treacherous miners will be wasting their resources on mining a useless and worthless coin. In this way, they will necessarily leave the grand pool of genuine Bitcoin miners, and there will be more consensus between those who will remain in respect to future evolution of Bitcoin. Thus, those pools which support hard forks will voluntarily leave the scene and free space for other miners, likely more friendly toward gradual development of Bitcoin. That's why hard forks will come out as good for Bitcoin in the long haul

There will be always good and bad side of this matter if it really happen which leads to we have btc ànd btu.
I do agree, it maybe good for bitcoin but it takes time. What about miners who proceed all those transaction? I don't get it, whether they will generate block for btc or btu or even both of it? Is that mean, bitcoin fees will increase as too many transaction per second but few miners since they parted

The miners are in fact the least concern here

If a few of them leave (wtf, even if all of them leave), it will only make Bitcoin good since there are over 30 thousand Bitcoin full nodes running currently. Most of them are supporting SegWit (i.e. using a SegWit ready Bitcoin client), and they will be just happy to mine a Bitcoin or two if such an opportunity presents itself. Further, I don't think that miners will be able to mine both coins at the same time since if BU gets some traction, they won't have enough power to mine these coins simultaneously. If it doesn't, then mining it doesn't make any sense altogether since they will be just wasting time and money

[Dimelord]

This is just another theory, but it seems to be pretty consistent

So why hard forks are good for Bitcoin in the long run? In short, because they allow to get rid of rogue miners. Yesterday I read a letter signed by major cryptocurrency exchanges, and they declared that they would list Bitcoin forks (if such should emerge) as just any other altcoin out there. Basically, it means that any attempts to hard fork Bitcoin will massively and almost instantaneously backfire on those supporting them. People will naturally stick to the trusted version, and treacherous miners will be wasting their resources on mining a useless and worthless coin. In this way, they will necessarily leave the grand pool of genuine Bitcoin miners, and there will be more consensus between those who will remain in respect to future evolution of Bitcoin. Thus, those pools which support hard forks will voluntarily leave the scene and free space for other miners, likely more friendly toward gradual development of Bitcoin. That's why hard forks will come out as good for Bitcoin in the long haul

Looking from the perspective of miners,its good because the miners supporting BU will leave the scene and bitcoin miners would enjoy mining bitcoins continuosly.There might be a need for hard fork in future because its the only way of making some changes.

[deisik]

This is just another theory, but it seems to be pretty consistent

So why hard forks are good for Bitcoin in the long run? In short, because they allow to get rid of rogue miners. Yesterday I read a letter signed by major cryptocurrency exchanges, and they declared that they would list Bitcoin forks (if such should emerge) as just any other altcoin out there. Basically, it means that any attempts to hard fork Bitcoin will massively and almost instantaneously backfire on those supporting them. People will naturally stick to the trusted version, and treacherous miners will be wasting their resources on mining a useless and worthless coin. In this way, they will necessarily leave the grand pool of genuine Bitcoin miners, and there will be more consensus between those who will remain in respect to future evolution of Bitcoin. Thus, those pools which support hard forks will voluntarily leave the scene and free space for other miners, likely more friendly toward gradual development of Bitcoin. That's why hard forks will come out as good for Bitcoin in the long haul

Looking from the perspective of miners,its good because the miners supporting BU will leave the scene and bitcoin miners would enjoy mining bitcoins continuosly.There might be a need for hard fork in future because its the only way of making some changes

Yeah, you got my point correctly

The problem is that the BU folks (both developers and miners supporting them) will likely not leave the Bitcoin scene since they seem to be quite happy where they are now, i.e. in an alleged opposition to Bitcoin while still reaping profits off it. When they are completely on their own with their Bitcoin copycat, they will most certainly have to face the harsh reality. And the reality is that the main exchanges have already stated that they will treat BU as a completely separate coin (read altcoin) along with the old "genuine" Bitcoin. This is not something which they might quite like

[darthmaul]

This is just another theory, but it seems to be pretty consistent

So why hard forks are good for Bitcoin in the long run? In short, because they allow to get rid of rogue miners. Yesterday I read a letter signed by major cryptocurrency exchanges, and they declared that they would list Bitcoin forks (if such should emerge) as just any other altcoin out there. Basically, it means that any attempts to hard fork Bitcoin will massively and almost instantaneously backfire on those supporting them. People will naturally stick to the trusted version, and treacherous miners will be wasting their resources on mining a useless and worthless coin. In this way, they will necessarily leave the grand pool of genuine Bitcoin miners, and there will be more consensus between those who will remain in respect to future evolution of Bitcoin. Thus, those pools which support hard forks will voluntarily leave the scene and free space for other miners, likely more friendly toward gradual development of Bitcoin. That's why hard forks will come out as good for Bitcoin in the long haul

That is good assumption about bitcoins relativity. Why not, bitcoin was firstly emerged as sole coin and then other alt and shit coins came into market hindering bitcoins presence. Well it did not real hindered bitcoin because bitcoin stood like stubborn commodity in the market. Bitcoin will always backfire such actions as you said and will continue its quest of reaching to millions and in coming future to billions of population for sure.

[omashi]

I'm not sure it's good, it creates confusion for new comers, and this reckless game of "free coins" which could be as bad as "printing money", but hey it's free market, let the best team wins.

[pereira4]

I don't see them as a good thing if the resulting fork shares the same hashing algorithm, because miners will always act selfishly seeking profit, and a decrease on hashrate because some miners decide to mine some pumped shitcoin derived from a fork is not good news, but this is part of bitcoin and in the long term the market should correct this.

Forks like Bitcoin Gold pose no risk at all.

[deisik]

I don't see them as a good thing if the resulting fork shares the same hashing algorithm, because miners will always act selfishly seeking profit, and a decrease on hashrate because some miners decide to mine some pumped shitcoin derived from a fork is not good news, but this is part of bitcoin and in the long term the market should correct this.

Forks like Bitcoin Gold pose no risk at all.

Long period has elapsed since this thread was created

Nevertheless, I still stick to my guns and think that hard forks are kind of required catharsis or purge of sorts which helps Bitcoin to evolve. For example, now miners are relentlessly switching their hashrate between Bitcoin Cash and just Bitcoin which clearly shows how corrupt, inefficient and ultimately detrimental the current system is. Is this a good development? I guess yes, in the long run, since before solving a problem, you should first understand it or even see that it exists at all. You could indeed turn a blind eye to it but it certainly won't go away on its own. It could only get worse over time

[diouf67]

This is just another theory, but it seems to be pretty consistent

So why hard forks are good for Bitcoin in the long run? In short, because they allow to get rid of rogue miners. Yesterday I read a letter signed by major cryptocurrency exchanges, and they declared that they would list Bitcoin forks (if such should emerge) as just any other altcoin out there. Basically, it means that any attempts to hard fork Bitcoin will massively and almost instantaneously backfire on those supporting them. People will naturally stick to the trusted version, and treacherous miners will be wasting their resources on mining a useless and worthless coin. In this way, they will necessarily leave the grand pool of genuine Bitcoin miners, and there will be more consensus between those who will remain in respect to future evolution of Bitcoin. Thus, those pools which support hard forks will voluntarily leave the scene and free space for other miners, likely more friendly toward gradual development of Bitcoin. That's why hard forks will come out as good for Bitcoin in the long haul

I mean in the long term hard forks will have to be something that occurs because there will always be splits in the direction that bitcoin should take, of course a lot of the time the split will just be pointless but sometimes it will actually have merit, take bitcoin cash for example, there seems to have been a coin created that actually can offer value and that's why both are no co-existing.

[usorin]

Hard forks are good for bitcoin only in the situation in with there are certain errors in the blockchain and there is no other way to get rid of them. Other Ways it is like a juice it is mixed with water, to volume ios bigger but the value is lower.

[cryptoalfs76]

This is just another theory, but it seems to be pretty consistent

So why hard forks are good for Bitcoin in the long run? In short, because they allow to get rid of rogue miners. Yesterday I read a letter signed by major cryptocurrency exchanges, and they declared that they would list Bitcoin forks (if such should emerge) as just any other altcoin out there. Basically, it means that any attempts to hard fork Bitcoin will massively and almost instantaneously backfire on those supporting them. People will naturally stick to the trusted version, and treacherous miners will be wasting their resources on mining a useless and worthless coin. In this way, they will necessarily leave the grand pool of genuine Bitcoin miners, and there will be more consensus between those who will remain in respect to future evolution of Bitcoin. Thus, those pools which support hard forks will voluntarily leave the scene and free space for other miners, likely more friendly toward gradual development of Bitcoin. That's why hard forks will come out as good for Bitcoin in the long haul

According to my research and wikepedia ,and more cryptocurrencies forum,the application of hardforksegwit2x in the word of bitcoin is to segregate the witnesses of upper head and the lower head of the body of the different block channel in order to wider the way of  trading exchange,in other terms to avoid the traffic segwit2x implemented of widening the road  of every block chanel so that there no more transaction delay.but sad to say its is postponed due to some circumstances.

[aardvark15]

This is just another theory, but it seems to be pretty consistent

So why hard forks are good for Bitcoin in the long run? In short, because they allow to get rid of rogue miners. Yesterday I read a letter signed by major cryptocurrency exchanges, and they declared that they would list Bitcoin forks (if such should emerge) as just any other altcoin out there. Basically, it means that any attempts to hard fork Bitcoin will massively and almost instantaneously backfire on those supporting them. People will naturally stick to the trusted version, and treacherous miners will be wasting their resources on mining a useless and worthless coin. In this way, they will necessarily leave the grand pool of genuine Bitcoin miners, and there will be more consensus between those who will remain in respect to future evolution of Bitcoin. Thus, those pools which support hard forks will voluntarily leave the scene and free space for other miners, likely more friendly toward gradual development of Bitcoin. That's why hard forks will come out as good for Bitcoin in the long haul

Another thing that forks do when they fail to produce a competitor to Bitcoin is that it reinforces Bitcoin’s position an a strong cryptocurrency. It continues to build trust that it can stand up to scrutiny and criticism. Bitcoin may not be the best cryptocurrency in many situations but is has a huge advantage in terms of name recognition and a longer track record than other coins.

[Hydrogen]

This is an interesting topic.

Its difficult to answer due to the non-deterministic nature of markets. Its implausible to visit a parallel universe where bitcoin didn't fork to compare what the outcome would be to the current universe.

This could make it a theoretical topic with a few intangibles which could be difficult to quantify.

The answer may revolve around a basic question of: "would bitcoin be worth more if there had never been a fork". And "if the answer to that is: yes, then would that added value be worth more than whatever difficult to quantify positives which could arise as a result of forks".

I would guess there would be at least two separate sides to this debate. There would be a pro fork and perhaps an anti fork side to things as well.

[Murloc]

People will naturally stick to the trusted version, and treacherous miners will be wasting their resources on mining a useless and worthless coin.

I had the same thoughts and I'm sure that you are generaly right. Imho people will always  rather stick to the trusted Bitcoin then spontaniously changing it to any other shitcoin. But the problem is that the latest issues were not caused by people. It was planned a long time before it happened and have nothing in common with the free market.

[deisik]

The answer may revolve around a basic question of: "would bitcoin be worth more if there had never been a fork". And "if the answer to that is: yes, then would that added value be worth more than whatever difficult to quantify positives which could arise as a result of forks"

I think it is in fact more complicated than that

The answer to your question (i.e. whether Bitcoin would be worth more or less without a hard fork) would not be definitive either. For example, the price might be higher without a hard fork, but what if some necessary changes or improvements wouldn't be done, and Bitcoin would eventually kick the bucket due to lack of required changes? On the other hand, with the hard fork eating away at some Bitcoin value initially, it might in fact prove very healthy for Bitcoin overall in the long run, and its price, which could fall first, would make new highs due to improvements made and thanks to the hard fork?

[krishnapramod]

I don't see them as a good thing if the resulting fork shares the same hashing algorithm, because miners will always act selfishly seeking profit, and a decrease on hashrate because some miners decide to mine some pumped shitcoin derived from a fork is not good news, but this is part of bitcoin and in the long term the market should correct this.

Forks like Bitcoin Gold pose no risk at all.

Long period has elapsed since this thread was created

Nevertheless, I still stick to my guns and think that hard forks are kind of required catharsis or purge of sorts which helps Bitcoin to evolve. For example, now miners are relentlessly switching their hashrate between Bitcoin Cash and just Bitcoin which clearly shows how corrupt, inefficient and ultimately detrimental the current system is. Is this a good development? I guess yes, in the long run, since before solving a problem, you should first understand it or even see that it exists at all. You could indeed turn a blind eye to it but it certainly won't go away on its own. It could only get worse over time

Miners moving back and forth between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash isn't over yet, it is going to be cyclic process, but most importantly the good thing that is going to come out of this is a much needed solidarity in the Bitcoin mining space. Recently, when BCH surpassed Bitcoins hashrate, Slush Pool temporarily became the biggest mining pool with 20.8% and it is also worth nothing that hashrate of Slush Pool has increased around 50% since October. So while purely profit-driven miners are leaving the bitcoin mining space open for competition, it is gradually getting filled up with miners who prefer Bitcoin stability over wasting their resources on an altcoin for short-term profits.

[buwaytress]

The answer may revolve around a basic question of: "would bitcoin be worth more if there had never been a fork". And "if the answer to that is: yes, then would that added value be worth more than whatever difficult to quantify positives which could arise as a result of forks"

I think it is in fact more complicated than that

The answer to your question (i.e. whether Bitcoin would be worth more or less without a hard fork) would not be definitive either. For example, the price might be higher without a hard fork, but what if some necessary changes or improvements wouldn't be done, and Bitcoin would eventually kick the bucket due to lack of required changes? On the other hand, with the hard fork eating away at some Bitcoin value initially, it might in fact prove very healthy for Bitcoin overall in the long run, and its price, which could fall first, would make new highs due to improvements made and thanks to the hard fork?

It's a possible way to look at forking but value means very different things. For most prominent people in the scene (made prominent by the media I will add) this value is simply put as price, which is their argument for forking, ie. to stop the stifling of price.

But if forking makes it difficult or unpredictable for existing users and merchants to adopt seamlessly, that is a lot of existing value lost as a useful payment tool.

Far sighted value is also inherently more difficult to establish and I believe responsible developers attempt this.

[Lieldoryn]

The more miners will mine bitcoin cash lower of cost-effective this process. For all his desire, the miners will not be able to do so and therefore will be forced to go back to mining bitcoin. You don't think that they're so ideological in their anti bitcoin that deliberately will suffer losses? There is nothing they can do about it. Such difficulties can only be carried out in a short period of time for speculation.

[Coins and Hardwork]

Is this what happened just this past couple of days that BCH is having a bubble and now that bitcoin is regaining the price, the BCH is slightly getting sunked down? People will be still putting their trust into the coin they used and used to trust crypto currency, the new ones may have a good feature that solved the real bitcoin's short comings, but I guess it is the hit back of it's popularity and demand.

[Hazaki]

The problem today is that a lot of people are confused between segwits and hard forks . But this time , the Segwit2x ( segregate witness 2x) isn't just an improvement to the block size of an additional 1Mb making the total of each block 2Mb  , it is also a hard fork because it won't be adequate with the old blocks of which is consisted the existing blockchain  . So technically this will be a totally new altcoin created off this Segwit2x and a brand new blockchain . But to make it effective mines must be okay with it and thus improving their hardware . So miners didn't agree to it and even the original bitcoin team didn't and that's why it got canceled . This segwit2x would have provided lots of improvements to the blockchain making transactions much faster and we hope that the bitcoin core team find a solution as soon as possible .

[deisik]

I don't see them as a good thing if the resulting fork shares the same hashing algorithm, because miners will always act selfishly seeking profit, and a decrease on hashrate because some miners decide to mine some pumped shitcoin derived from a fork is not good news, but this is part of bitcoin and in the long term the market should correct this.

Forks like Bitcoin Gold pose no risk at all.

Long period has elapsed since this thread was created

Nevertheless, I still stick to my guns and think that hard forks are kind of required catharsis or purge of sorts which helps Bitcoin to evolve. For example, now miners are relentlessly switching their hashrate between Bitcoin Cash and just Bitcoin which clearly shows how corrupt, inefficient and ultimately detrimental the current system is. Is this a good development? I guess yes, in the long run, since before solving a problem, you should first understand it or even see that it exists at all. You could indeed turn a blind eye to it but it certainly won't go away on its own. It could only get worse over time

Miners moving back and forth between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash isn't over yet, it is going to be cyclic process, but most importantly the good thing that is going to come out of this is a much needed solidarity in the Bitcoin mining space. Recently, when BCH surpassed Bitcoins hashrate, Slush Pool temporarily became the biggest mining pool with 20.8% and it is also worth nothing that hashrate of Slush Pool has increased around 50% since October. So while purely profit-driven miners are leaving the bitcoin mining space open for competition, it is gradually getting filled up with miners who prefer Bitcoin stability over wasting their resources on an altcoin for short-term profits.

I see your point but there are a few reservations

First of all, miners which are mining Bitcoin Cash are not wasting their resources for short-term profits as you claim. They sell the coins they have mined, and they receive the same dollars (or whatever) as with selling the regular Bitcoin. Further, since mining Bitcoin Cash is more profitable, they in fact earn more than they would have earned with Bitcoin if they had continued to mine it. The bottom line is that they turn out more powerful at the end of the day (read gain more resources) than those who didn't switch and chose not to jump at the opportunity presented

[magz]

This is for increasing the blocksize parameter. Volume of Bitcoin users rapidly increasing that is why it is getting very hard to transact or mine Bitcoin. If the blocksize will be increase ,it may double the volume of transactions to be handled in the same time of span. This is definitely very advantageous to us. Everything has to be appropriately maintain for the reliability of the network.

[xIIImaL]

People will naturally stick to the trusted version, and treacherous miners will be wasting their resources on mining a useless and worthless coin.

I had the same thoughts and I'm sure that you are generaly right. Imho people will always  rather stick to the trusted Bitcoin then spontaniously changing it to any other shitcoin. But the problem is that the latest issues were not caused by people. It was planned a long time before it happened and have nothing in common with the free market.

That is happens this time dude. Some large mining pools move towards to the BCH instead of keep supporting bitcoin and sticking with the short term bump coin. I do know still those people are experienced in that. Why they goes to take these kind of decisions.
If you are have plan to hold atleast 6 months or long terms. Either both of these bitcoin will be option invest your fund.
When segwit2x hard fork we see the increasing of blocks last time in the time of August 1st. Since failed this time. We should keep support it.

[Visbay]

The answer may revolve around a basic question of: "would bitcoin be worth more if there had never been a fork". And "if the answer to that is: yes, then would that added value be worth more than whatever difficult to quantify positives which could arise as a result of forks"

I think it is in fact more complicated than that

The answer to your question (i.e. whether Bitcoin would be worth more or less without a hard fork) would not be definitive either. For example, the price might be higher without a hard fork, but what if some necessary changes or improvements wouldn't be done, and Bitcoin would eventually kick the bucket due to lack of required changes? On the other hand, with the hard fork eating away at some Bitcoin value initially, it might in fact prove very healthy for Bitcoin overall in the long run, and its price, which could fall first, would make new highs due to improvements made and thanks to the hard fork?

Well I think bitcoin learn a lot of things from its past and bitcoin know very well how to handle fork and any other challenges because I remember when china banned bitcoin so that time was very tough for bitcoin and the way bitcoin fight against china so must appreciate bitcoin so now any fork for bitcoin make it more strong.

[Clairvoyance]

Forks are good for bitcoin for it elevate the standards and see how the community reacts with certain updates and improvements. Like the Segwit2x most of the miners and the community doesn't support that's why it is cancelled. Also, forks are indication of development.

[roddy5]

People will naturally stick to the trusted version, and treacherous miners will be wasting their resources on mining a useless and worthless coin.

I had the same thoughts and I'm sure that you are generaly right. Imho people will always  rather stick to the trusted Bitcoin then spontaniously changing it to any other shitcoin. But the problem is that the latest issues were not caused by people. It was planned a long time before it happened and have nothing in common with the free market.

That is happens this time dude. Some large mining pools move towards to the BCH instead of keep supporting bitcoin and sticking with the short term bump coin. I do know still those people are experienced in that. Why they goes to take these kind of decisions.
If you are have plan to hold atleast 6 months or long terms. Either both of these bitcoin will be option invest your fund.
When segwit2x hard fork we see the increasing of blocks last time in the time of August 1st. Since failed this time. We should keep support it.

Maybe the good thing that forks are doing to Bitcoin is that every time there is an upcoming fork bitcoin's price are always going high because people wants to get a huge amount of the token from the fork.

[thejaytiesto]

My theory is that there can only be one major coin competing in a certain hashing algorithm.

2 big coins competing for a piece of the SHA256 pie... not gonna happen... the balance must turn somewhere, either in BTC's favor, or BCH's favor (or whatever other competing big SHA256 currency). 2 co-existing big coins fighting for the same pie, I don't see viable.

If im not mistaken, BCH will not take BTC's pie, since the biggest stakeholders support BTC that I know of.

[zombie6]

because they solve the basic problems, drawbacks in the code and make significant changes! This is also done for large speculations, because the bitcoin core team is associated with mining and pump pools and is forced to reckon with them!

[Mustion]

There are many reasons and simple hard wallets help you store bitcoin to avoid all the attacks and it is within your control instead of the others.

[deisik]

My theory is that there can only be one major coin competing in a certain hashing algorithm.

2 big coins competing for a piece of the SHA256 pie... not gonna happen... the balance must turn somewhere, either in BTC's favor, or BCH's favor (or whatever other competing big SHA256 currency). 2 co-existing big coins fighting for the same pie, I don't see viable.

If im not mistaken, BCH will not take BTC's pie, since the biggest stakeholders support BTC that I know of.

But why do you think the algo is so important?

I can as easily claim that two coins sharing the same blockchain technology (technology, mind you) are not possible (let's say not economically viable), and the balance should inevitably turn in favor of just one coin (only one should prevail, yeah). Does it make a lot of sense? I guess, no. So how is that different with an algo that a coin uses under the hood? Personally, I see no connection. You can use the same algo, and get two completely different coins each eating at their own pie

[0t3p0t]

This is just another theory, but it seems to be pretty consistent

So why hard forks are good for Bitcoin in the long run? In short, because they allow to get rid of rogue miners. Yesterday I read a letter signed by major cryptocurrency exchanges, and they declared that they would list Bitcoin forks (if such should emerge) as just any other altcoin out there. Basically, it means that any attempts to hard fork Bitcoin will massively and almost instantaneously backfire on those supporting them. People will naturally stick to the trusted version, and treacherous miners will be wasting their resources on mining a useless and worthless coin. In this way, they will necessarily leave the grand pool of genuine Bitcoin miners, and there will be more consensus between those who will remain in respect to future evolution of Bitcoin. Thus, those pools which support hard forks will voluntarily leave the scene and free space for other miners, likely more friendly toward gradual development of Bitcoin. That's why hard forks will come out as good for Bitcoin in the long haul

For me hard forks are not only good for Bitcoin itself but also for the loyal investors and holders of Bitcoin. There are benefits that hard forks will bring to us just like free coins and another all time high. Hard forks really affects Altcoin investors as hard fork is likely to happen because Altcoins may bleed to death due to massive dump. In short hard forks makes the price to move up.

[don.kihot]

because they solve the basic problems, drawbacks in the code and make significant changes! This is also done for large speculations, because the bitcoin core team is associated with mining and pump pools and is forced to reckon with them!

The plugs did not solve the bitcoin problem. The biggest problems - long transactions and a large commission have not yet been resolved. New coins do not arouse the interest of users. Bitcoin remains the most popular

[bitcon]

Hardforks can help fixing some mistakes in a blockchain, but they make cryptofans being very nervous as Bitcoin price jumps these days.

[Noeter31]

An optimistic outlook on how Bitcoin Blockchain splits may actually help to advance the Cryptocurrency eco-system.

[sheamus10]

I don't agree if you think hardfork is good for bitcoin, contrary hardfork cause many loss especially for the price of any coins become unstable. And tend to decline, many are taking profits but they don't know the risks that there.

[Nellayar]

This is just another theory, but it seems to be pretty consistent

So why hard forks are good for Bitcoin in the long run? In short, because they allow to get rid of rogue miners. Yesterday I read a letter signed by major cryptocurrency exchanges, and they declared that they would list Bitcoin forks (if such should emerge) as just any other altcoin out there. Basically, it means that any attempts to hard fork Bitcoin will massively and almost instantaneously backfire on those supporting them. People will naturally stick to the trusted version, and treacherous miners will be wasting their resources on mining a useless and worthless coin. In this way, they will necessarily leave the grand pool of genuine Bitcoin miners, and there will be more consensus between those who will remain in respect to future evolution of Bitcoin. Thus, those pools which support hard forks will voluntarily leave the scene and free space for other miners, likely more friendly toward gradual development of Bitcoin. That's why hard forks will come out as good for Bitcoin in the long haul

Some said that forks can destroy bitcoin then this thread showed that forks will help bitcoin in a long run. Therefore I conclude that forks neither help bitcoin nor destroy bitcoin in a long run. If the forks will become shitcoin then the reputation of bitcoin will loose. On the other hand, those people who entered this fork may leave and they will stake to the original one, bitcoin. Now I know how forks work and what its value in bitcoin and other cryptocurrency.

[FrueGreads]

I'm not against hard forks at all, as long as they don't mislead other investors. If hard forks are legit projects, and they just want to implement their own vision of bitcoin, then I'm ok with it. If they are good, people will probably support them. This helps bitcoin evolve, because it's a safe way of seeing how some changes to the bitcoin protocol would work. I like the idea of a free market, so variety is actually good, to keep the market moving and growing.

What I don't like about hard forks, is when they try to use the bitcoin name for them. Bcash keeps saying they are the real bitcoin, and that is not correct. They decided to fork, so they went their way, and should mark themselves as different coin, and not the real bitcoin. This is true for bcash, and any other future fork.

[rockyboy]

It is good for any bitcoin correction but most likely i love it because i am earning in every bitcoin correction.

[LoudA__]

I don't agree if you think hardfork is good for bitcoin, contrary hardfork cause many loss especially for the price of any coins become unstable. And tend to decline, many are taking profits but they don't know the risks that there.

Most of the reason why bitcoin is forking is because of the development or the upgrade they are saying. I think we don't need to disagree with that since we people like bitcoin to live long so we really need to support it's development to cope up with other crypto currencies being released. I am not saying that bitcoin will be replaced by it's state today, what I am saying is that if it is not developed it might really be replaced by another crypto currency as the most expensive and most used digital currency. But what I don't like with the hard forks that is happening is the reasons like to make a profitable digital currency that can make their selves billionaires, naming their own bitcoins and saying that it will be replacing bitcoin even if it won't.

[Rooster101]

It may depends on what every people believe but some recent hardforks had no effects on bitcoin price because it continue to soar reaching many unprecedented all time high. Some people believes that hardforks is an opportunity to prove bitcoin and others view it as a threat. If every hardfork makes bitcoin price soar, it will eventually become the norm and bitcoin holders will ignore it.