Can Bitcoin survive a real fork?

[SGExodus]

As open source project evolves, it will attract more contributors into the project development. They can help to improve the code to make it more efficient and perhaps adding new features along the way.  However, with more contributors, conflicts will also arise because human beings can't always agree with each other -- especially when the group gets larger.

In other open source projects, groups can resolve disagreement with new project fork and carry on with the development in separate ways.  However, in the case of Bitcoin, such fork may be fatal to the survival of the Bitcoin ecosystem.  

Let me illustrate my point with a hypothetical scenario: "A group of developer wants to change the rule of Bitcoin network to allow old coins that have not been transacted/circulated for x number of years to be recycled as mining reward in future blocks.  A vote is conducted and 40% of the active Bitcoin users is in favor of this idea. A fork is done, with 60% of the miner staying with the original Bitcoin project, and 40% of the miners move on to the new fork".

Unlike project forks that restart the blockchain, such as Litecoin and Bytecoin, the fork that resulted from this hypothetical scenario will likely continue with the current blockchain.  In the short term, many of the users with bitcoins in their wallet might not even reject such fork, as their wealth have seemingly doubled with their coins appearing in both the blockchain.  However, in reality, the network security for both the branches have been severely weaken, making them more vulnerable to 51% attack, which may then result in downward spiral for bitcoiners to lose confident in the system.
 
Applying Prisoner's Dilemma,  these two groups might not cooperate, even if it is in their best interests to do so (i.e. not to fork). The 0.7/0.8 fork issue was resolved quickly because majority of the people agreed to cooperate.  But there will likely be more decisions to be made in the future, and we can't be sure how groups of people will react the next time.

The possibility of a future project fork, is like knowing that there is a bomb in the system but you have no ability to disarm.  

If democracy is what made Bitcoin successful today, it will also be the same democracy that kills Bitcoin in the future.

[kjj]

Wouldn't it have been easier to just read one of the other hundred threads on this topic?

There is no voting.  If a change doesn't get overwhelming support from the community, it doesn't happen, partly for reasons that you mentioned.  Also, the minority chain would be worthless, because any merchants that switch to it will be flooded with people dumping their holdings.  Those purchases would be free, because the people making them don't care about holding coins in that chain, which will cause the value of coins on it to plummet.  This will be particularly severe with changes that go against the monetary policies established in the main chain, like inflation or theft (you call it recycling, but we call it theft).

[the founder]

You know what's interesting though,  I bet somewhere around 50% of the coins ever mined,  especially in the 10,000 coins for a pizza day,  were deleted, formatted,  never backed up,  experimented with.  Etc Etc..

I bet we won't ever have have 21 million coins...     or as now the Total Number of Bitcoins = 11,097,600   

I bet people actually control closer to 5 million or so coins.  The other 6 million were formatted, wiped ,  lost, etc.

[SGExodus]

Wouldn't it have been easier to just read one of the other hundred threads on this topic?

There is no voting.  If a change doesn't get overwhelming support from the community, it doesn't happen, partly for reasons that you mentioned.  Also, the minority chain would be worthless, because any merchants that switch to it will be flooded with people dumping their holdings.  Those purchases would be free, because the people making them don't care about holding coins in that chain, which will cause the value of coins on it to plummet.  This will be particularly severe with changes that go against the monetary policies established in the main chain, like inflation or theft (you call it recycling, but we call it theft).

"If a change doesn't get overwhelming support from the community, it doesn't happen" that sounds like voting to me.

And thanks for elaborating the seriousness of a project fork.

If it is a minor fork, where only 10% of the miners left, their chain will die naturally like how you reasoned.

However, if it is a not so minor fork, such as a 30-40% split, the chance of Bitcoin collapsing will be much higher.  Because you can't be sure who else from the majority camp will betray.  They are equally likely to dump all the coins on the majority camp, and "deflect" to the other one.

If it is a 50-50 split, both will die.

[kjj]

Wouldn't it have been easier to just read one of the other hundred threads on this topic?

There is no voting.  If a change doesn't get overwhelming support from the community, it doesn't happen, partly for reasons that you mentioned.  Also, the minority chain would be worthless, because any merchants that switch to it will be flooded with people dumping their holdings.  Those purchases would be free, because the people making them don't care about holding coins in that chain, which will cause the value of coins on it to plummet.  This will be particularly severe with changes that go against the monetary policies established in the main chain, like inflation or theft (you call it recycling, but we call it theft).

"If a change doesn't get overwhelming support from the community, it doesn't happen" that sounds like voting to me.

And thanks for elaborating the seriousness of a project fork.

If it is a minor fork, where only 10% of the miners left, their chain will die naturally like how you reasoned.

However, if it is a not so minor fork, such as a 30-40% split, the chance of Bitcoin collapsing will be much higher.  Because you can't be sure who else from the majority camp will betray.  They are equally likely to dump all the coins on the majority camp, and "deflect" to the other one.

If it is a 50-50 split, both will die.

But, it won't be a 50-50 split, at least not in terms that matter.  It won't even be close.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand, but the capital that has formed around bitcoin likes the current rules.  The economic power of the system is not going to move from a good system to a shitty one, no matter how many people want to go looting.

The whiny crybabies simply lack the ability to screw with the main chain, but the people staying with bitcoin will be able to utterly destroy the fake one.

[cypherdoc]

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand, but the capital that has formed around bitcoin likes the current rules. 

This.

you are quite right.  the reason Bitcoin has become as popular as it has is b/c of the economic promises it has made in the form of the hard rules it has encoded.  the ppl who've joined Bitcoin are not going to switch to something else that results in theft of value.  we have already agreed to this in principle.

[nebulus]

Isn't the point of the fork is to make bitcoin  survive? (Considering one is needed)

[Ekaros]

I'm more into question how would situation when there massive loss of connectivity between geographical areas, namely continents be handled?

In case of no-double spends the end result is just incorporating transfers to longer block chain. But if there were double spends or sufficiently long delay that some blocks were spendable it would be real mess...

As global currency bitcoin is rather fragile, depending a lot on cotinuing existence of Internet...

[kjj]

I'm more into question how would situation when there massive loss of connectivity between geographical areas, namely continents be handled?

In case of no-double spends the end result is just incorporating transfers to longer block chain. But if there were double spends or sufficiently long delay that some blocks were spendable it would be real mess...

As global currency bitcoin is rather fragile, depending a lot on cotinuing existence of Internet...

If aliens cut the planet in half, we'll have bigger problems.

Considering the relatively low amount of network traffic needed to move blocks around, that is about the most likely scenario.  No other network severing would be complete enough to cause those problems.

[SGExodus]

Don't nitpick on the hypothetical scenario.   I made up the scenario after reading one of the discussion in Development and Technical Discussion forum.  

However, the concern remains. There will be many more other decisions/debates as Bitcoin evolves.  You can't just sweep the dirts under the carpet and pretend they don't exist.

Almost all popular open source projects ended up with some form of project forks.  There are four possible outcomes from open source fork:

* The fork dies
* The fork merges with the original
* The fork becomes so popular that it draws developers and users away from the original.  Original project eventually dies.
* Both original and fork survive - perhaps by attracting different audiences or meeting different user needs.

So far, we have witnessed many forks of alt-cryptocurrency, but mostly at code-based level, but not code-based + data + users

What make you believe so strongly such kind of forking won't happen to Bitcoin?   Absolute trust in every decisions made by the current developers?

[Eich]

If democracy is what made Bitcoin successful today, it will also be the same democracy that kills Bitcoin in the future.

Democracy didnt make bitcoin successful. What made it successful is the fact that its an innovative idea. There is no voting, its not a democracy. Bitcoin is not an analogue of the welfare state where the state can steal money from one person and give it to someone else. if you need alternatives, make another altcoin.

Edit: The scenario you mentioned almost sounds like freicoin.

[kjj]

Now and then, I start thinking that you might be confused by the polysemy of "fork".

The software can be "forked" by anyone at any time.  If their "fork" is compatible with bitcoin, then the world has two different clients for the same network.  The popularity of the two softwares will vary depending on how well they meet the needs of the users.  For now, call this #1.

If the "fork" is not compatible with bitcoin, then it is not bitcoin and the world now has two networks, each with their own client.  The popularity of these two networks will vary, depending on how well they meet the needs of their users.

The way these two networks differ depends on a choice made by the developers of the new software.  They can start fresh with a new genesis block and a new chain (#2A), or they can create a moment of divergence, where the blocks prior to that point are valid for both tines, while blocks after that are only valid for one or the other, this would be a chain "fork" (#2B).

#1 is encouraged, in a way, but difficult.
#2A is the standard scamcoin-de-jour model.  Note that no scamcoin has yet managed to develop any significant capital formation.
#2B has not yet been seen, and, as I've previously described, users of the not-bitcoin branch should expect the value of their holdings to evaporate quickly, making it unlikely to ever start.

Your last post seems to suggest that you are concerned about a #1 fork turning into a #2B fork.  It will not happen, because the gravity of bitcoin resides not in the whims of the developers, but in the economic power that has grown up around the network.  By last fall, bitcoin had grown big enough that the economic mass of the system was able to band together to hire a full time programmer, and several other people were making a decent living off of donations for their contributions.  Who knows where we will be by next fall...

Bitcoin the software project can live or die without consequence, but Bitcoin the network is probably self-sustaining and immortal at this point.

[jbreher]

Almost all popular open source projects ended up with some form of project forks.  

Almost no popular open source projects have an overwhelming economic penalty for forking. Bitcoin, OTOH...

[solracx]

BitCoin cannot by itself serve successfully all the interests of its users. 

The user base will prefer alternative coins that have different rules.

Also, having only a single currency like BitCoin is akin to having a single European currency like the Euro.

We've seen the pros and cons of this.

The cons however are that a single currency does not allow countries to insulate themselves from other countries.  Multiple currencies allow that form of isolation and protection.   A country like Greece is unable to devalue its currency and make its services competitive with the rest of the euro zone.  A single European currency removes that kind of flexibility in the same way a single crypto currency does.

I can for example envision an alternative currency where anonymity is not prized as much as bitcoin or alternatively a currency where complete anonymity is built in.  Each one is ideal for different use cases. 

Bitcoin right now with it deflationary structure is not ideal for regular commerce where prices are expected to be more stable.  Bitcoin appears to be a store of wealth like Gold.  However, something else may emerge that will be the currency of exchange.   Only time will tell, but rest assured, multiple crypto-currencies are going to be the norm.

[Impaler]

The split between mining power is irrelevant, what ever fork the exchanges and merchants accept IS Bitcoin and the other fork is worthless, without the exchange and merchants to complete the circle BTC doesn't have any value regardless of the hash rates involved.

[kjj]

The split between mining power is irrelevant, what ever fork the exchanges and merchants accept IS Bitcoin and the other fork is worthless, without the exchange and merchants to complete the circle BTC doesn't have any value regardless of the hash rates involved.

No, no, no.  Bitcoin is a set of rules, a "protocol", if you'd prefer that word.  If there is a fork, the branch that does not follow the current rules is "not-bitcoin", and "bitcoin" continues as usual.  It doesn't matter what the looters call their branch, it will be "not-bitcoin", even if not in name.

[bg002h]

I fear more the unintended network split that doesn't get detected quickly by happenstance (we got kinda lucky recently). De-splitting the network is painful and might not always work out as well.

[datz]

BTC is only as strong as the technology that supports it. I have invested in BTC and carry no emotional or libertarian attachments. I hit hard and fast and wipe my thought patterns to reevaluate what systems are best for the functioning of the entire Universe as a whole in each new period of entropy. After an initial investment in late 2011, after two years of reaping the benefits of BTC without actively participating in the community (to avoid groupthink), I have objectively determined that Ripple is the superior protocol. Ripple will decrease the value of BTC since it includes a built-in exchange and equalizes the currencies technologically and incentively. With Ripple, the dollar is now on the same plane as the BTC technologically - we can exchange all world's currencies instantly, almost freely at scale. Ripple is quite simply, closer to the singularity. Ripple will eliminate the main forces driving BTC adoption by equalizing the incentives boosting the magnitude of these forces (the technological and therefore economic advantages of the BTC over the dollar). The BTC may still carry privacy advantages and may still carry weight in the criminal underground, but semi-anonymity is only a minor driving force. Regardless of the way OpenCoin chooses to hoard currency, regardless of the sickening idea of an authority controlling much of the currency, Ripple will prevail over BTC.

Peace for another two years.

[mhps]

Bitcoin is a set of rules, a "protocol"... If there is a fork, the branch that does not follow the current rules is "not-bitcoin"

Who is there to decide which branch is "not-bitcoin"? Is there a supreme court in charge of interpreting every word  (What "is" is?) of Satoshi's paper, and all the foundation documents? Is the self-consistency of all the "protocols"  future-proof? Who has the authority to appoint the judges of the supreme court? The economic mass Bitcoin attracts could be the very factor that undoes Bitcoin. Powerful interest groups will want to butt in.

[morningtime]

Just like fiat money which can be forged/printed, there will be Bitcoin forks that do a little damage for a short time. But neither strategy will prove succesful: most fiat money is still the real thing, despite criminals printing millions of it.