Are the forkers purposely trying to kill BTC?

[manchester93]

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.

Users depend on miners for transaction confirmations. This is why, for example, if 99+ % of miners hard forked, that it would be coercive. Due to the difficulty algorithm, users would have no choice but to follow the miners if they want a functioning network.

It's not that miners are "slaves." It's that the protocol was designed to incentivize miners to work for block rewards because of user demand. The way you frame this throws the incentive mechanism on its head.

[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?

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.

There's a few reasons why Metcalfe's law doesn't apply here: 1) the nodes aren't equal (monetarily), 2) the network isn't splitting -- it's really duplicating from a non-miners perspective, and 3) it doesn't take into account the positive effects associated with the splitting process.  Right?  Just think, to use a Metcalfe variable,  if we still communicated by facsimile instead of through it's child technology, the world wide web....bitcoin transactions would be quite a bit more precarious.

[ramsdaj28]

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.

Not really. They are just trying to create a new cyptocurrency out of an established one - BITCOIN. Another reason why forking happens is that they want to make the transactions faster with lower fees. Before the forking happened on August 1, the transaction traffic (esp. in blockchain) is so slow that it even take a week for your transactions to be confirmed.

[romani245]

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.

It's definitely about controlling the future development of Bitcoin--including securing Asic-Boost and keeping the majority of transactions on-chain, rather than pursuing the Lightning Network.

But regarding your point about altcoin prices: maybe that's true over the short term, but wouldn't exchanges just open BCH markets for altcoins? If it really took over?

[DooMAD]

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.

Users depend on miners for transaction confirmations. This is why, for example, if 99+ % of miners hard forked, that it would be coercive. Due to the difficulty algorithm, users would have no choice but to follow the miners if they want a functioning network.

It's not that miners are "slaves." It's that the protocol was designed to incentivize miners to work for block rewards because of user demand. The way you frame this throws the incentive mechanism on its head.

And you propose we gauge user demand by arguing hypotheticals for the rest of time?  With everyone speaking for everyone else?  The perpetual tribal conflict with neither side backing down, bickering for the rest of eternity.  Yeah... sounds like fun.  

The only way this works is to get on with it and see what people actually use.  There's also that tiny and persistent non-sequitur where people can't logically make the argument that "non-mining nodes are vital and the network can't survive without them", whilst simultaneously claiming that "miners supposedly make all the decisions and the non-mining nodes are completely powerless to prevent it".  You can't have it both ways, so which is it?  My stance is that non-mining nodes do matter, so if they don't support the miners, the issue should be swiftly resolved and the miners won't build a successful chain (but you still have no right or ability to deny them the chance to try, though, precisely because no one is in control of anyone).  So again, let's just get on with it.  There is literally no other way through this unless one of the two sides starts making concessions.  I don't see any hint of that happening yet.  So the two sides are going to do their own thing.  And fair play to 'em.

Ultimately, it's still an issue of freedom and not one of control.  Whatever else is said, nothing will change this.  I'm mentally deducting credibility points from anyone who uses those phrases.  The "hostile takeover", "cabal", "benevolent dictator", "taking control", etc, because they all imply that the user of those phrases simply doesn't understand the core tenet of permissionless.  Everyone does what they want.  Qué Sera and such.

You always have alternatives, you just don't happen to like those alternatives as much as trying (and failing) to dictate terms and force your own views onto the miners.

[joseafonso123az]

 I also think that way, because forking BTC and creating a new coin in the process might make the new coin more valuable. I think that forks are happening to make the services of transaction more smooth, but it creates more unstability in the world of BTC.

[nexus99]

No, I don't think that forkers have the intent of killing btc. Many of those innovations are actually carried out for the greater good and solve the scalability problems. I find many aspects of forking pretty sensible. That said, everyone is still holding on to their own business interests.

[manchester93]

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.

Users depend on miners for transaction confirmations. This is why, for example, if 99+ % of miners hard forked, that it would be coercive. Due to the difficulty algorithm, users would have no choice but to follow the miners if they want a functioning network.

It's not that miners are "slaves." It's that the protocol was designed to incentivize miners to work for block rewards because of user demand. The way you frame this throws the incentive mechanism on its head.

And you propose we gauge user demand by arguing hypotheticals for the rest of time?  With everyone speaking for everyone else?  The perpetual tribal conflict with neither side backing down, bickering for the rest of eternity.  Yeah... sounds like fun.  

The only way this works is to get on with it and see what people actually use.  There's also that tiny and persistent non-sequitur where people can't logically make the argument that "non-mining nodes are vital and the network can't survive without them", whilst simultaneously claiming that "miners supposedly make all the decisions and the non-mining nodes are completely powerless to prevent it".  You can't have it both ways, so which is it?  My stance is that non-mining nodes do matter, so if they don't support the miners, the issue should be swiftly resolved and the miners won't build a successful chain (but you still have no right or ability to deny them the chance to try, though, precisely because no one is in control of anyone).  So again, let's just get on with it.  There is literally no other way through this unless one of the two sides starts making concessions.  I don't see any hint of that happening yet.  So the two sides are going to do their own thing.  And fair play to 'em.

In the scheme of things, I don't think Bitcoin Cash was coercive. It was an opt-in hard fork intended to split off from the network. That's the ideal way to hard fork. But I do think that Bitmain et al would do whatever is in their power (manipulating the BTC and BCH markets, and using Bitmain's hashpower to give the appearance of market demand when that demand may be fabricated) to see their side win.

[chek2fire]

There is a question to me why someone want to kill a network that pay them every day. Maybe the answer is that they want to kill bitcoin so they can switch after that to bcash. Is more centralised and can control it very easy. I cant find any other reason.
It seems Satoshi was very idealistic to believe that economical interest will be the main reason for the miners to protect the network. It seems miners has form a cartel and they are against their economical interest and only want to destroy bitcoin.

[exstasie]

There is a question to me why someone want to kill a network that pay them every day. Maybe the answer is that they want to kill bitcoin so they can switch after that to bcash. Is more centralised and can control it very easy. I cant find any other reason.

Bingo. It's been said that AsicBoost could increase Bitmain's output by 30%. Segwit apparently threatens that. The solution? Create market demand for a BTC fork that keeps AsicBoost (and their hash power majority) intact.

They don't necessarily need to kill BTC. They just need Bitcoin Cash to be large enough to sustain demand and remain a top coin in the long term. They are obviously vying for Bitcoin's title, but they don't need to kill Bitcoin to do that, either.

[BartS]

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.

That is exactly what they are trying to achieve, they cannot become bitcoin if they do not kill the current bitcoin, this is a battle about power and the miners are trying to have an even greater influence in the network and the devs of core are doing their best to try to keep that influence at bay, I think at the end bitcoin is going to win but difficult times are ahead of us.

[stromae]

There is a question to me why someone want to kill a network that pay them every day. Maybe the answer is that they want to kill bitcoin so they can switch after that to bcash. Is more centralised and can control it very easy. I cant find any other reason.
It seems Satoshi was very idealistic to believe that economical interest will be the main reason for the miners to protect the network. It seems miners has form a cartel and they are against their economical interest and only want to destroy bitcoin.

The response to this is very easy, they don't aim to kill the blockchain, they just want to divide this huge power into small pieces so that they can take some pieces under their control. Then they can start to rule. The story is this, for me.

[cjmoles]

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.

Bitcoin is killing itself!  Have you tried purchasing a cup of coffee, lately, with bitcoin?  Fees: https://bitcoinfees.21.co/  <---This is ridiculous ---> it costs more for the transaction than it does for the product itself.  This cannot hold....the forkers are trying to fix the broken platform, not kill it.

[Hydrogen]

The fork, blocksize debate and transaction DDoS spam could be intended to replace core developers with stooges who will do the bidding of miners.

Core developers have good reason to oppose a fork. There aren't any good arguments for a fork other than wresting control of btc away from core devs.

[squatter]

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.

Bitcoin is killing itself!  Have you tried purchasing a cup of coffee, lately, with bitcoin?  Fees: https://bitcoinfees.21.co/  <---This is ridiculous ---> it costs more for the transaction than it does for the product itself.  This cannot hold....the forkers are trying to fix the broken platform, not kill it.

Give it time. Segwit is locked in and will be activated soon. Much testing has been done on the Lightning Network, and conceivably, transacting on LN could be much cheaper than transacting fully on-chain. And without any trust involved! But without Segwit, it will be much harder to implement. Even Segwit itself will provide a capacity increase, lowering fees in the interim. I'm not too worried.

[marky89]

The fork, blocksize debate and transaction DDoS spam could be intended to replace core developers with stooges who will do the bidding of miners.

That's at least partly the goal. Jihan Wu and company has been pretty open about it too. I think they invented the word "De-Coreifying" while mass deleting commits from Bitcoin ABC after it was forked from Bitcoin. Part of the selling point here is that Core is being "replaced"; that's been what the r/btc and Bitcoin Unlimited crowd has been clamoring for for years now.

Core developers have good reason to oppose a fork. There aren't any good arguments for a fork other than wresting control of btc away from core devs.

I think some of the forkers may actually have good intentions, but their arguments and solutions are terrible.

[DooMAD]

I'm mentally deducting credibility points from anyone who uses those phrases.  The "hostile takeover", "cabal", "benevolent dictator", "taking control", etc, because they all imply that the user of those phrases simply doesn't understand the core tenet of permissionless.  

And yet...

The fork, blocksize debate and transaction DDoS spam could be intended to replace core developers with stooges who will do the bidding of miners.

Core developers have good reason to oppose a fork. There aren't any good arguments for a fork other than wresting control of btc away from core devs.

Credibility points deducted.  Core do not control Bitcoin, thus there is no control to wrest.  Developers cannot be replaced because they can always contribute code to the chain they want to support.  Again, you have the concepts of control and freedom completely ass-backwards.  

Miners can't force Developers to follow them.
Miners can't force Non-mining Nodes to follow them.
Developers can't force Miners to follow them.
Developers can't force Non-mining Nodes to follow them.
Non-mining Nodes can't force Developers to follow them.
Non-mining Nodes can't force Miners to follow them.

All participants are free to do whatever the hell they want and, one way or another, some combination of those participants will create the greatest incentive to follow their chain.

The flaw in your thinking is that it's somehow a binary choice between miners and devs about who "leads".  It isn't.  Neither one should be "in control".  Neither one is "in control".  So the two have the freedom to go their separate ways if that's what they want to do (and don't forget about the non-mining nodes and the role they play in balancing it all out).  So keep playing conspiracy if that's what helps you sleep at night, but in the end, all the hype and drama is a feeble distraction to what's actually happening.  And what's happening right now is a clear and vivid demonstration that at least half the people on this forum who think they understand Bitcoin, haven't got the slightest clue.  Reality is biting hard, yet still people somehow refuse to see it.  Right in front of your eyes, you have clear and undeniable proof that control has no relevance because no one is backing down.  

No one is in control.  

Permissionless.  

Learn it.

In the scheme of things, I don't think Bitcoin Cash was coercive. It was an opt-in hard fork intended to split off from the network. That's the ideal way to hard fork.

LOL.  All hardforks are opt-in.  The argument you appear to be trying to make is that hardforks are okay as long as there aren't too many people that disagree with you.  But if a majority disagree with you, then it's bad because you don't want to play with the people you disagree with.  But at the same time, you're less incentivised to play with those who do agree with you if it meant issues transacting due to minority chain issues like lack of hashpower.  So either way, you're between a rock and a hard place.  There's still no force or control involved though.  There is only the alignment of incentives.  Everyone does what's best for themselves, even if the choice isn't always easy.

The simple fact is, you don't get to decide how many people disagree with you.  You can label it coercive if there happen to be a lot of them, but it doesn't change anything.  They still disagree with you and you still can't tell them what to do.

[WhiteBeard]

This is the kind of thing that happens when people wake up and realize they have been letting a central authority tell them what to do and how to manage their assets.  It's called 'rebellion.' 

As the supposed shepherds of bitcoin (because they control access to the primary bitcoin repository and get to decide which changes to allow), Bitcoin Core overstepped the bounds of authority for a decentralized system by kicking out one of the primary core developers (who tried to fix a problem) and then sitting on their hands and refusing to fix the scale-ability issue for which the masses were pleading.  (I suspect that someone with deep pockets and a strong interest in maintaining the status quo was influencing them.)

So what happens?  A couple of groups of developers, took up the challenge to fix the issue, and since they couldn't get their work incorporated into Core, the only logical choice was to fork the chain, start a new currency, and let the markets/users decide.

Unless there are other major changes, I suspect that we will see a stability develop in which one chain becomes the 'store of value', like gold in a vault, and one will become a truly spendable currency/medium of exchange.

None of these players want to hurt bitcoin.  They just want it to work like they believe it should.  Perhaps they are both/all right...

[Sithara007]

The fork, blocksize debate and transaction DDoS spam could be intended to replace core developers with stooges who will do the bidding of miners.

Core developers have good reason to oppose a fork. There aren't any good arguments for a fork other than wresting control of btc away from core devs.

The code devs have so far failed in their attempt to resolve the scaling issues. Please check the number of unconfirmed transactions. The number has swung between 50,000 and 100,000 for any time during the last 2 weeks. This can't go ahead in the long term, especially as the number of users are rising. There needs to be a permanent solution, and the core devs don't have any.

[WhiteBeard]

Credibility points deducted.  Core do not control Bitcoin...

No one is in control.  

Credibility points deducted.  

This is pure BS!!  Bitcoin Core is a small group of devs who control access to the Bitcoin Core repository (the only bitcoin repository until recently).  They decide what code gets included.  

Just ask Gavin Andresen, or Jeff Garzik about how much control they have.