Bitcoin price still remains strong and has grown significantly throughout the weekend despite the hard fork.
...
What occurred with the Bitcoin/Bcash fork was not a real hardfork.
For it to have been a real hardfork, a decent amount of miners/hash would
have needed to run the ABC client and chainsplit at a certain point in the
future, and thus leave the Bitcoin chain forever to join the Bcash chain only.
In reality, what occurred was just a Github copy/paste/revision fork.
So, since it was performed as an altcoin with the same origin would, as compared
to a contentious hardfork, the damages and effects on the ecosystem was lessened,
so "Bitcoin remains strong despite the fork" because the "fork" was only an altcoin
creation with a common origin, and not an outright attack on the network where the
two chains are in an actual hash/chain race competition.
When ETH chainsplit from ETC, that was a "non-contentious" hardfork.
An altcoin (Bcash) is created when your side of the chainsplit does not have majority
of the hash from the "original chain", yet still is surviving, whether by luck or design.
Thanks for clarifying this for me. At least now I can say that what happened was not really the right definition of a hard fork. And maybe this is the reason why many are calling the split of Bitcoin and BCH as a soft fork. Sometimes it can be hard for an ordinary guy like me to keep up with all of these definitions and ideas.
If a decent amount of Bitcoin miners actually left the Bitcoin chain to only mine on the
Bcash chain, then it would have been a "contentious hardfork", which is essentially an
attack to the Bitcoin ecosystem since it harms the security of the network and violates
Consensus. That isn't what happened, and what has occurred is closest to an altcoin.
The Bitcoin/Bcash split was neither a hardfork nor a softfork.
The best way to describe Bcash is to consider it an altcoin that used an orphaned block
as the mechanism to start their chain. If it was a hardfork or a softfork, the two chains
(Bitcoin & Bcash) would be in an actual competition with each other, where the one with
the least hash should die off within a few days or less. Bcash was designed to prevent
this competition from coming into play, yet still originates from the Bitcoin chain, so it
is like an altcoin that used a Bitcoin orphaned block as its "Altcoin Genesis".
Some would consider it a "Bilateral Hardfork", but I think with that term, it assumes that
a Community Consensus (high or majority) was reached, but there is still a minority who
will purposefully maintain the old chain. So, to appease those "old chainers", the "new
chainers" program their new clients so that things like block competition, replay attacks,
and cross chain issues don't occur. So, if Bcash will be categorized as a "Bilateral Hardfork"
type in the future somehow, I would considered it as a "Reverse Bilateral Hardfork", which
is performed with a very low or minority Consensus, so to me, a "Reverse Bilateral
Hardfork" is simply just another term for an altcoin creation mechanism.
