Are the forkers purposely trying to kill BTC?

[92iceman]

The forks are shaking the very foundation of BTC's attraction ... that is away from the whims and motive of a controlling cabal. One could have been dismissed, but now a 2nd one starts establishing a pattern.

[romani245]

The forks are shaking the very foundation of BTC's attraction ... that is away from the whims and motive of a controlling cabal. One could have been dismissed, but now a 2nd one starts establishing a pattern.

I suspect that they are not trying to kill BTC, but rather control its development path and promote protocol ossification. Who are the most entrenched players in the game? Bitmain (largest miner and chip manufacturer). Bitpay and Coinbase -- their business model depends on cheap fees. Investors in such companies -- like Roger Ver. And they've all been pushing for hard fork block size increases all along. It's all about their business interests.

[HabBear]

The forks are shaking the very foundation of BTC's attraction ... that is away from the whims and motive of a controlling cabal. One could have been dismissed, but now a 2nd one starts establishing a pattern.

I suspect that they are not trying to kill BTC, but rather control its development path and promote protocol ossification. Who are the most entrenched players in the game? Bitmain (largest miner and chip manufacturer). Bitpay and Coinbase -- their business model depends on cheap fees. Investors in such companies -- like Roger Ver. And they've all been pushing for hard fork block size increases all along. It's all about their business interests.

And their business interests should interest us. If their business interests are able to get greater adoption of Bitcoin we all win. You sound like someone who hates business...maybe that's true, maybe it isn't.

Regardless of how you think about it, businesses and business interests aren't the problem. Corporations are the enemy. Corporations don't live or breathe or grow on their own. It takes people. It's people who can be the problem, who can be the enemy. Dismissing actions done in the name of business simply for the sake of forsaking "business" is foolish. It's naive.

[leirou]

I do think that forkers have purpose to innovate to make the BTC platform/ system more efficient but the problem is the idea of including some centralization in fork soon is the one who will kill one of its main purpose.

[blockchainmarketus]

The forks are shaking the very foundation of BTC's attraction ... that is away from the whims and motive of a controlling cabal. One could have been dismissed, but now a 2nd one starts establishing a pattern.

Of course, They are trying to kill legacy of Satoshi Nakamoto. BTC will be the biggest currency in the world. There will be many parties will earn side effect from this. They tend to kill BTC if they can if not they will destroy the community at least the bitcoin community that is stable since 2009. If the community split they will easily hardfork. Now few miners support BCH, in fact BCH hardfork completely failed then in NOvember 2017 There will be hardfork again, BTC2x. I think after that there will be other forks.

[pearlmen]

I also have the feeling that a lot of people are coming with their series if forks just to create confusion here and there and the issue I have with them is to stop using the name bitcoin call it any other name you so wish and stop making it seems you are  working in the interest of bitcoin. I am sure when this other fork happens, then a lot of panic will happen with several crash prices and at the end, it won't really solve anything. I just wished Satoshi can come and lock the whole thing to avoid all this adulteration.

[cjmoles]

The forks are just all part of the process....They're a necessary part of the evolution of the platform.  The problem isn't really the forking---> the problem is that the forked chains aren't dying fast enough, right?  If you think about it, as long you're hodling, then you're guaranteed to be hodling something on the winning chain.  They're ALL bitcoin, just different species of bitcoin, and you want to be hodling the species that is the most adaptable to this ever changing environment, right?  Maybe it's time to start thinking in non-binary terms----> it's not REALLY one or the other because they're really all just one interconnected "fuzzy chain."

EDIT: Can you tell that the weed's getting good in California?

[exstasie]

Regardless of how you think about it, businesses and business interests aren't the problem. Corporations are the enemy. Corporations don't live or breathe or grow on their own. It takes people. It's people who can be the problem, who can be the enemy. Dismissing actions done in the name of business simply for the sake of forsaking "business" is foolish. It's naive.

What if those business interests are in conflict with the interests of Bitcoin users in general? What if they are in conflict with the network's level of decentralization? Here's an example:

If an entity like Bitmain could use AsicBoost to improve its mining output by ~30%, that's perfectly rational. But it would be a very centralizing force, given that it could force many mining outfits to shut down since very few will be able to compete with Bitmain's output.

Is it wrong to then oppose Bitmain's business interests? They seem to be at odds with my interests as a Bitcoin user...

[NeuroticFish]

The forks are just all part of the process....They're a necessary part of the evolution of the platform.  The problem isn't really the forking---> the problem is that the forked chains aren't dying fast enough, right?  If you think about it, as long you're hodling, then you're guaranteed to be hodling something on the winning chain.  They're ALL bitcoin, just different species of bitcoin, and you want to be hodling the species that is the most adaptable to this ever changing environment, right?  Maybe it's time to start thinking in non-binary terms----> it's not REALLY one or the other because they're really all just one interconnected "fuzzy chain."

EDIT: Can you tell that the weed's getting good in California?

The problem is that some forks become altcoins with quite confusing names and quite big claims on Bitcoin legacy.
But it's about money and power, so it's not unexpected for this to happen.

And we may have forks even this year, however, the last fork was imho a bigger success than many have expected.

[92iceman]

The forks are just all part of the process....They're a necessary part of the evolution of the platform.  The problem isn't really the forking---> the problem is that the forked chains aren't dying fast enough, right?  If you think about it, as long you're hodling, then you're guaranteed to be hodling something on the winning chain.  They're ALL bitcoin, just different species of bitcoin, and you want to be hodling the species that is the most adaptable to this ever changing environment, right?  Maybe it's time to start thinking in non-binary terms----> it's not REALLY one or the other because they're really all just one interconnected "fuzzy chain."

EDIT: Can you tell that the weed's getting good in California?

problem is the platform itself is no longer "immutable" in the sense a small cabal can change it.

[Gotottack]

The forks are shaking the very foundation of BTC's attraction ... that is away from the whims and motive of a controlling cabal. One could have been dismissed, but now a 2nd one starts establishing a pattern.

The fact of the matter is that human nature is greedy. That is why there are people trying to control bitcoins their own way. This is the reason why there have been a lot of talks and proposal about having a bitcoin fork. Though what is nice about bitcoins is that before something gets implemented that would mean the community must approve such a change. However, this results into politicking among the majority players of bitcoins.

[Bittoshi]

A new fork means a new airdrop for us like with BCH. You can only win. Either sell it for profit or keep it and hope that the new Altcoin rises in price. But the most important thing is that the main Bitcoin gets stronger afterwards.

[Carlsen]

I think there are two groups of forkers:
Those who actually want to improve things, and those who see the fork as an option to make money.
For the second group, they do not care what the consequences for the whole cryptocurrency sector are.
Even if that would be the end of all crypto.

[figmentofmyass]

A new fork means a new airdrop for us like with BCH. You can only win. Either sell it for profit or keep it and hope that the new Altcoin rises in price. But the most important thing is that the main Bitcoin gets stronger afterwards.

*does not compute*

if we keep splitting the network, we're diluting the base of prospective investors (now they have multiple forks to choose from to invest in). more than that, they'll be confused, especially since there's supposed to be only 21 million bitcoins, but apparently, there are multiple forks of bitcoin. this throws into question the whole idea that bitcoin is deflationary, since it can just be forked and new supply created.

if it were just "free money" that would be great. but if you can sell it, it means someone is buying it. it means there is *demand* which means less demand for BTC. i don't see how that makes BTC stronger.

[cjmoles]

The forks are just all part of the process....They're a necessary part of the evolution of the platform.  The problem isn't really the forking---> the problem is that the forked chains aren't dying fast enough, right?  If you think about it, as long you're hodling, then you're guaranteed to be hodling something on the winning chain.  They're ALL bitcoin, just different species of bitcoin, and you want to be hodling the species that is the most adaptable to this ever changing environment, right?  Maybe it's time to start thinking in non-binary terms----> it's not REALLY one or the other because they're really all just one interconnected "fuzzy chain."

EDIT: Can you tell that the weed's getting good in California?

The problem is that some forks become altcoins with quite confusing names and quite big claims on Bitcoin legacy.
But it's about money and power, so it's not unexpected for this to happen.

And we may have forks even this year, however, the last fork was imho a bigger success than many have expected.

The question is then begged:  how are the forks damaging the original protocol?

problem is the platform itself is no longer "immutable" in the sense a small cabal can change it.

The ledger is still for all practicality "immutable."  It even preserves itself across chains....Now, the platform was never meant to be immutable---> that's the whole purpose for the pulls, the commits, and the consensus algorithms....right?

[marky89]

The forks are just all part of the process....They're a necessary part of the evolution of the platform.  The problem isn't really the forking---> the problem is that the forked chains aren't dying fast enough, right?  If you think about it, as long you're hodling, then you're guaranteed to be hodling something on the winning chain.  They're ALL bitcoin, just different species of bitcoin, and you want to be hodling the species that is the most adaptable to this ever changing environment, right?  Maybe it's time to start thinking in non-binary terms----> it's not REALLY one or the other because they're really all just one interconnected "fuzzy chain."

EDIT: Can you tell that the weed's getting good in California?

The problem is that some forks become altcoins with quite confusing names and quite big claims on Bitcoin legacy.
But it's about money and power, so it's not unexpected for this to happen.

And we may have forks even this year, however, the last fork was imho a bigger success than many have expected.

The question is then begged:  how are the forks damaging the original protocol?

Metcalfe's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law

If the value of the Bitcoin network is increasing based on the increasing number of users on the network, the reverse should also hold true. If BTC users are migrating to BCH, that shrinks the the size and utility of the BTC network.

I've seen some math on the subject; I wish I could remember where I've seen the charts (maybe one of Jimmy Song's posts?) Anyway, the idea is that if a major network split occurred (like 50-50), the damage to the value of the combined networks would be significant, and together, they would be worth far less than the original network. This makes sense, since each network would be far less useful than the original (combined) network.

[RawDog]

Bitpay and Coinbase -- their business model depends on cheap fees. Investors in such companies -- like Roger Ver. And they've all been pushing for hard fork block size increases all along. It's all about their business interests.

I think you are confused buddy.  Blockstream/Core is the 'business interest'.  Roger Ver is Bitcoin Jesus.  Bitcoin Jesus is the savior of Bitcoin and he does this from the purity and goodness of his heart.  He has only the interests of the community.  Bow to Jesus like it says in the bible.

[DooMAD]

The forks are shaking the very foundation of BTC's attraction ... that is away from the whims and motive of a controlling cabal. One could have been dismissed, but now a 2nd one starts establishing a pattern.

So let's look at this from a slightly different perspective.  If you willingly rely on someone to do something for you, are they in control of you?  

Keeping in mind, if you don't like what they're doing for you, you can rely on other people to do that exact same job the way you want them to do it?  In order to use Bitcoin effectively, there have to be miners and non-mining nodes securing that chain.  But everyone has the freedom to chose which chain they want to interact on.  So if the miners you currently rely on to use the chain you're interacting on, suddenly decide they want to use a different chain, does that sound like control to you?  Or is that freedom?  

Why can't you just rely on some other miners to secure your preferred chain and leave these miners to do what they want to do?

This entire argument seems to hinge on the focal point where people don't understand that miners aren't your slaves.  It sounds like you want to control them, not the other way around.  You people have the whole damn thing completely ass-backwards.

Think on that.

[Sithara007]

These people will not gain anything if Bitcoin is dead. Because even the altcoin prices are linked to the exchange rates of Bitcoin. Altcoins will crash even more if the Bitcoin prices crash. So my guess is that they just want to control the future development of Bitcoin, rather than destroying it.

[kryptqnick]

I also have the feeling that a lot of people are coming with their series if forks just to create confusion here and there and the issue I have with them is to stop using the name bitcoin call it any other name you so wish and stop making it seems you are  working in the interest of bitcoin. I am sure when this other fork happens, then a lot of panic will happen with several crash prices and at the end, it won't really solve anything. I just wished Satoshi can come and lock the whole thing to avoid all this adulteration.

Well, they are damn good with creating confusion, I must say. There are many people on this forum who believe it's wrong to call bch an altcoin, for it is the truest btc. Plus, the price bitcoin cash has is absolutely crazy. And it became #3 in marketcap in a week or two, whereas other currencies move slowly to deserve such a high position.
Anyway, I'm glad it doesn't really make a difference to bitcoin, it grows in price no matter what happens.