Are the forkers purposely trying to kill BTC?

[cjmoles]

Well, it's looking like bitcoin isn't quite the platform we imagined we could build to engage in the markets equitably....It's too slow, too expensive, and involves too much maintenance.  It makes one wonder: what good is bitcoin?  Maybe bitcoin cash will solve some of these problems so that we can start engaging the markets again.  When a six dollar fee is required to make a five dollar transaction, then something's wrong!  I don't care what the bitcoin Luddites say --->  BITCOIN IS BROKEN!  We need something that works.

[1713831877]

1713831877

[1713831877]

1713831877

[1713831877]

1713831877

[1713831877]

1713831877

[1713831877]

1713831877

[craZyLovE0916]

Well, it's looking like bitcoin isn't quite the platform we imagined we could build to engage in the markets equitably....It's too slow, too expensive, and involves too much maintenance.  It makes one wonder: what good is bitcoin?  Maybe bitcoin cash will solve some of these problems so that we can start engaging the markets again.  When a six dollar fee is required to make a five dollar transaction, then something's wrong!  I don't care what the bitcoin Luddites say --->  BITCOIN IS BROKEN!  We need something that works.

You are right dude and this is why we need the Lightning Network. I can't even imagine Bitcoin going past $10,000 without some major development (like LN) otherwise who in their right mind would pay 5%-10% fees on every transaction when credit cards are far lower? (2.9% and under)

It just doesn't make sense and hopefully there is a solution very shortly or Bitcoin is screwed!

[MAbtc]

Well, it's looking like bitcoin isn't quite the platform we imagined we could build to engage in the markets equitably....It's too slow, too expensive, and involves too much maintenance.  It makes one wonder: what good is bitcoin?  Maybe bitcoin cash will solve some of these problems so that we can start engaging the markets again.  When a six dollar fee is required to make a five dollar transaction, then something's wrong!  I don't care what the bitcoin Luddites say --->  BITCOIN IS BROKEN!  We need something that works.

You are right dude and this is why we need the Lightning Network. I can't even imagine Bitcoin going past $10,000 without some major development (like LN) otherwise who in their right mind would pay 5%-10% fees on every transaction when credit cards are far lower? (2.9% and under)

It just doesn't make sense and hopefully there is a solution very shortly or Bitcoin is screwed!

5-10% sounds absurd, but as you mention, we don't need micro-transactions to be confirmed on-chain. If Bitcoin is really to be digital gold (thus achieving much higher values), we can expect that on-chain fees in fiat terms will appear absurd. What you're paying for are confirmations on the most secure payment network in the world. That can't be cheap judging by the expenditures miners make.

For redundant consumer payments, particularly with companies like Coinbase and Bitpay, the Lightning Network will hopefully make Bitcoin micro-transactions tenable.

[cjmoles]

Well, it's looking like bitcoin isn't quite the platform we imagined we could build to engage in the markets equitably....It's too slow, too expensive, and involves too much maintenance.  It makes one wonder: what good is bitcoin?  Maybe bitcoin cash will solve some of these problems so that we can start engaging the markets again.  When a six dollar fee is required to make a five dollar transaction, then something's wrong!  I don't care what the bitcoin Luddites say --->  BITCOIN IS BROKEN!  We need something that works.

You are right dude and this is why we need the Lightning Network. I can't even imagine Bitcoin going past $10,000 without some major development (like LN) otherwise who in their right mind would pay 5%-10% fees on every transaction when credit cards are far lower? (2.9% and under)

It just doesn't make sense and hopefully there is a solution very shortly or Bitcoin is screwed!

5-10% sounds absurd, but as you mention, we don't need micro-transactions to be confirmed on-chain. If Bitcoin is really to be digital gold (thus achieving much higher values), we can expect that on-chain fees in fiat terms will appear absurd. What you're paying for are confirmations on the most secure payment network in the world. That can't be cheap judging by the expenditures miners make.



For redundant consumer payments, particularly with companies like Coinbase and Bitpay, the Lightning Network will hopefully make Bitcoin micro-transactions tenable.

The other day I wanted to purchase a 5 dollar e-book; the transaction fee was greater than the price of the merchandise I was trying to purchase!  The book cost 5 bucks, the minimum fee (Xapo-dynamic fee) was six bucks, so the total transaction was 11 bucks!  That's not going to work!  Right now the standard transaction fee is ~5.44 USD (https://estimatefee.com/).  <--- That's not going to work and I don't care what color the smoke is they're blowing up my ass!

[marky89]

Well, it's looking like bitcoin isn't quite the platform we imagined we could build to engage in the markets equitably....It's too slow, too expensive, and involves too much maintenance.  It makes one wonder: what good is bitcoin?  Maybe bitcoin cash will solve some of these problems so that we can start engaging the markets again.  When a six dollar fee is required to make a five dollar transaction, then something's wrong!  I don't care what the bitcoin Luddites say --->  BITCOIN IS BROKEN!  We need something that works.

You are right dude and this is why we need the Lightning Network. I can't even imagine Bitcoin going past $10,000 without some major development (like LN) otherwise who in their right mind would pay 5%-10% fees on every transaction when credit cards are far lower? (2.9% and under)

It just doesn't make sense and hopefully there is a solution very shortly or Bitcoin is screwed!

5-10% sounds absurd, but as you mention, we don't need micro-transactions to be confirmed on-chain. If Bitcoin is really to be digital gold (thus achieving much higher values), we can expect that on-chain fees in fiat terms will appear absurd. What you're paying for are confirmations on the most secure payment network in the world. That can't be cheap judging by the expenditures miners make.



For redundant consumer payments, particularly with companies like Coinbase and Bitpay, the Lightning Network will hopefully make Bitcoin micro-transactions tenable.

The other day I wanted to purchase a 5 dollar e-book; the transaction fee was greater than the price of the merchandise I was trying to purchase!  The book cost 5 bucks, the minimum fee (Xapo-dynamic fee) was six bucks, so the total transaction was 11 bucks!  That's not going to work!  Right now the standard transaction fee is ~5.44 USD (https://estimatefee.com/).  <--- That's not going to work and I don't care what color the smoke is they're blowing up my ass!

It's frustrating, I know. I used bitcoin for my last month's VPN payment... same situation. The fact is that Bitcoin, as is, isn't ideal for micropayments. This recent network spam isn't helping, either. There's a lot of progress being made, though. Segwit is now active; as people migrate to Segwit outputs, new capacity will be created for everyone on the network.

The Lightning Network isn't far off, either. The Zap wallet was released in beta a week or two ago, and it's a Lightning Network wallet. Eclair is around the corner, too. The wheels are in motion!

[cjmoles]

Well, it's looking like bitcoin isn't quite the platform we imagined we could build to engage in the markets equitably....It's too slow, too expensive, and involves too much maintenance.  It makes one wonder: what good is bitcoin?  Maybe bitcoin cash will solve some of these problems so that we can start engaging the markets again.  When a six dollar fee is required to make a five dollar transaction, then something's wrong!  I don't care what the bitcoin Luddites say --->  BITCOIN IS BROKEN!  We need something that works.

You are right dude and this is why we need the Lightning Network. I can't even imagine Bitcoin going past $10,000 without some major development (like LN) otherwise who in their right mind would pay 5%-10% fees on every transaction when credit cards are far lower? (2.9% and under)

It just doesn't make sense and hopefully there is a solution very shortly or Bitcoin is screwed!

5-10% sounds absurd, but as you mention, we don't need micro-transactions to be confirmed on-chain. If Bitcoin is really to be digital gold (thus achieving much higher values), we can expect that on-chain fees in fiat terms will appear absurd. What you're paying for are confirmations on the most secure payment network in the world. That can't be cheap judging by the expenditures miners make.



For redundant consumer payments, particularly with companies like Coinbase and Bitpay, the Lightning Network will hopefully make Bitcoin micro-transactions tenable.

The other day I wanted to purchase a 5 dollar e-book; the transaction fee was greater than the price of the merchandise I was trying to purchase!  The book cost 5 bucks, the minimum fee (Xapo-dynamic fee) was six bucks, so the total transaction was 11 bucks!  That's not going to work!  Right now the standard transaction fee is ~5.44 USD (https://estimatefee.com/).  <--- That's not going to work and I don't care what color the smoke is they're blowing up my ass!

It's frustrating, I know. I used bitcoin for my last month's VPN payment... same situation. The fact is that Bitcoin, as is, isn't ideal for micropayments. This recent network spam isn't helping, either. There's a lot of progress being made, though. Segwit is now active; as people migrate to Segwit outputs, new capacity will be created for everyone on the network.

The Lightning Network isn't far off, either. The Zap wallet was released in beta a week or two ago, and it's a Lightning Network wallet. Eclair is around the corner, too. The wheels are in motion!

The micropayment markets have been gone for awhile.  Now the markets in the moderate ranges are being effected....many (almost all) of the early adopters were the moderate ranged markets ---> e-stuff, coffee shops, vape clubs....this is going to have a longer lasting effect I believe....confidence in the platform is waning.  Who's going to invest in a merchant gateway that's unpredictably fickle and subject to becoming obsolete?  I don't know, I'm beginning to think the bitcoin cash syndicate was right all along.

[squatter]

The micropayment markets have been gone for awhile.  Now the markets in the moderate ranges are being effected....many (almost all) of the early adopters were the moderate ranged markets ---> e-stuff, coffee shops, vape clubs....this is going to have a longer lasting effect I believe....confidence in the platform is waning.  Who's going to invest in a merchant gateway that's unpredictably fickle and subject to becoming obsolete?  I don't know, I'm beginning to think the bitcoin cash syndicate was right all along.

Maybe Bitcoin was never ideal for micropayments from a design perspective. They worked initially because there wasn't much demand for transaction confirmations (not many people used the network). Now that there is so much demand, we need off-chain solutions like the Lightning Network, which don't compromise the trustless model. LN's model may be different and off-chain, but it is trustless and fully compatible with Bitcoin. That's good enough for me.

[DooMAD]

BITCOIN IS BROKEN!  We need something that works.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I'd argue it's working exactly as intended.  Some of the other people who also perceive that to be a problem have produced some code and released it into the open market to compete.  Whilst others are working on some different code and will release that in November.  

Everyone's doing what they think is best for the future, even if a decidedly vocal rabble constantly bitch about it or call it an attack.  

We've literally never had it so good.  At all times, users are free to decide which code they wish to use.  And even if you can't decide, or want to wait for a while before you decide, or don't want to make a decision at all, it doesn't even matter if you hold coins before any fork.  You can just watch events unfold and decide to switch clients later, or go with the flow.  I don't get why people are so upset about this, aside from being misled by the utterly mistaken belief that there should be a centralised authority in control, which runs wholly contrary to the entire concept behind Bitcoin.


The amount of control in Bitcoin is limited to the following.


As a user, you have control over:

• Your private keys (and corresponding wealth)
• Which software you choose to run
• The chain you wish to transact on
• Whether you run a full node and influence the rules enforced on your desired chain, or just rely on SPV

and how much you complain about how the other two groups don't agree with you (but you don't get to tell them what to do).



As a developer, you have control over:

• The code you produce and the rules you ideally want your own client to enforce
• Which direction in development you would like your own client to follow
• The chain you wish to develop upon
• Any repositories you might be in charge of

and how much you complain about how the other two groups don't agree with you (but you don't get to tell them what to do).



As a miner, you have control over:

• How much you wish to invest in hardware
• What you do with your block reward coins
• The mining pool you want to contribute to at any given time
• Which software you choose to run and, causally, which chain you choose to mine

and how much you complain about how the other two groups don't agree with you (but you don't get to tell them what to do).



And finally, you also have control over being involved in more than one of these categories, if you so choose, or even all three.

But that's about it.  

No developer overlords making all the decisions.  No miner overlords making all the decisions.  No user (activated softfork  ) overlords making all the decisions.  If anyone advocates any of those things, they need to seriously consider what it is they're actually asking for, because I think any of those outcomes results in a weaker Bitcoin, not a stronger one.  As paradoxical as it sounds, everyone has just enough control in order to make it so that no one has overall control.  That's how it should be.  

Everything else is a mix of freedom, incentivisation, competition, equilibrium and consensus.  

The forkers are NOT trying to kill BTC.

[no0dlepunk]

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 don't think that they are "purposely" trying to kill bitcoins. They are just businessmen who keeps on thinking how to make huge profits out of what is currently available in our community. You might also want to think that they are trying to compete with the mainstream - like visa when it comes to transactions. If they happen to kill bitcoin one day then you must not cry like a baby... if you want to get rich (granting that is your purpose with your bitcoins) then you must be prepared with the constant change.

There is no such thing as safe haven. Maybe for a while... CAVEAT!

[TeamButtcoin]

I don't know but i heard that BitcoinCash it was created to overcome the BTC , now i don't know if this is true but BCH had a big increase and people have chosen to invest in her.

[buwaytress]

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I'd argue it's working exactly as intended.  Some of the other people who also perceive that to be a problem have produced some code and released it into the open market to compete.  Whilst others are working on some different code and will release that in November.  

Everyone's doing what they think is best for the future, even if a decidedly vocal rabble constantly bitch about it or call it an attack.  

We've literally never had it so good.  At all times, users are free to decide which code they wish to use.  And even if you can't decide, or want to wait for a while before you decide, or don't want to make a decision at all, it doesn't even matter if you hold coins before any fork.  You can just watch events unfold and decide to switch clients later, or go with the flow.  I don't get why people are so upset about this, aside from being misled by the utterly mistaken belief that there should be a centralised authority in control, which runs wholly contrary to the entire concept behind Bitcoin.


The amount of control in Bitcoin is limited to the following.


As a user, you have control over:

• Your private keys (and corresponding wealth)
• Which software you choose to run
• The chain you wish to transact on
• Whether you run a full node and influence the rules enforced on your desired chain, or just rely on SPV

and how much you complain about how the other two groups don't agree with you (but you don't get to tell them what to do).



As a developer, you have control over:

• The code you produce and the rules you ideally want your own client to enforce
• Which direction in development you would like your own client to follow
• The chain you wish to develop upon
• Any repositories you might be in charge of

and how much you complain about how the other two groups don't agree with you (but you don't get to tell them what to do).



As a miner, you have control over:

• How much you wish to invest in hardware
• What you do with your block reward coins
• The mining pool you want to contribute to at any given time
• Which software you choose to run and, causally, which chain you choose to mine

and how much you complain about how the other two groups don't agree with you (but you don't get to tell them what to do).



And finally, you also have control over being involved in more than one of these categories, if you so choose, or even all three.

But that's about it.  

No developer overlords making all the decisions.  No miner overlords making all the decisions.  No user (activated softfork  ) overlords making all the decisions.  If anyone advocates any of those things, they need to seriously consider what it is they're actually asking for, because I think any of those outcomes results in a weaker Bitcoin, not a stronger one.  As paradoxical as it sounds, everyone has just enough control in order to make it so that no one has overall control.  That's how it should be.  

Everything else is a mix of freedom, incentivisation, competition, equilibrium and consensus.  

The forkers are NOT trying to kill BTC.

Well said! I guarantee you're not alone in this. There are still far too few camps to be the only one in any By words and action, I see myself in the biggest camp of them all: users who wait, see, and choose the solution that works and is (or seems) easiest. And that actually works too, as developers and miners ultimately are influenced by what (they perceive) users feel is best.

Like you said: we've actually got quite a good system that is actually working. Anyone is free to do as they will or are able to, and yet cannot dictate on their own what others must do. And as you point out, none of the discussions, arguments, even the whining, are forced on anyone. We're free to be annoyed by them, add to them, or stay oblivious.

Bitcoin isn't broken, and no one is trying to kill it. It's playing out the way it was designed to.

[fasdorcas]

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.

What you say here is exactly the problem. There are so many greedy people in crypto, and because it's unregulated by governments, they can do whatever they want within the current laws.

Look at all the scammy ICO's. People are loosing tons of money on shitcoins, and promises of greater things, and in the end there is only one winner. The team behind who is milking all the ICO money into their pockets!

As for bitcoin cash! they should have made a new altcoin with a new blockchain instead of trying to call themself bitcoin cash. They will never be bitcoin, they will always be "something"cash.

Yes, they’re purposely doing it. That’s what I believe. But, the main purpose of doing this is to maintain the Blockchain, though some people are having personal interest. Anyone with a plan to end Bitcoin, might be someone in support of an altcoin, which I know there are people with such purpose.

[marky89]

As a miner, you have control over:

• How much you wish to invest in hardware
• What you do with your block reward coins
• The mining pool you want to contribute to at any given time
• Which software you choose to run and, causally, which chain you choose to mine

and how much you complain about how the other two groups don't agree with you (but you don't get to tell them what to do).

Would you agree that miners have more control than that, if they control a majority of global hash power? The chain with the most cumulative POW is considered the strongest chain (i.e. the main chain). Consideration of validity aside, a majority of hash power therefore is very meaningful to a lot of bitcoiners.

So I think it's helpful to think about this not from the perspective of individual or casual miners. A group of miners (which could be malicious), or a single chip manufacturer (i.e. Bitmain) could control said hash power. What then? What I'm getting at is, should we (as users) simply put up with such actors, and continue to follow the strongest chain? At what point (re, for example, miner centralization) would you say that splitting off from the network is worth it?

I agree that everyone is free to do whatever is in their power (how Stirner-esque)...the biggest hurdle I see is that users, by and large, are relatively new to the ecosystem. Many are largely non-technical and investment-oriented. In the short term, it makes sense for the herd to follow the longest chain, even if that might be detrimental to the system (re decentralization) in the long term.

[Hydrogen]

One issue with larger blocks is, it assumes a significant increase in transaction per second performance can be gained by increasing block size despite these claims being untested and unvetted.

Nonsense. It is pre tested and pre vetted a priori. Because, first grade arithmetic.

If bitcoin's speed is 3 transactions per second and 2MB blocks scale to 6 transactions per second with 8 MB blocks scaling to 24 transactions per second...

Bitcoin will still be incredibly slow by the standards of credit cards & other payment systems which achieve thousands of transactions per second. 24 transactions per second with 8 MB blocks is still extremely slow.

Many 1 MB blocks on bitcoin core are mined are not 100% filled to capacity. There are many 1 MB blocks which contain only 600 kilobytes due to miners imposing conditions on transaction fees to limit which transactions they mine. Even if block size was increased to 2 MB or 8 MB there would be many blocks which were only filled to 25% or lower capacity due to miners only processing transactions containing above a certain threshold of transaction fee.

Transactions per second is a theoretical number which can vary. It is possible to increase block size and see transactions per second increase a smaller than expected amount.

[jbreher]

Bitcoin will still be incredibly slow by the standards of credit cards & other payment systems which achieve thousands of transactions per second. 24 transactions per second with 8 MB blocks is still extremely slow.

False comparison. On a human scale, bitcoin transactions post in about the same time as credit card transactions - a couple seconds. Bitcoin transactions settle in several ten minute intervals. In contrast, credit card transactions settle in thirty days or more.

And when blocks are not chronically full, zero conf transactions are reliable enough for the majority of retail purchases. At least they were, until RBF broke them.

[Hydrogen]

False comparison. On a human scale, bitcoin transactions post in about the same time as credit card transactions - a couple seconds. Bitcoin transactions settle in several ten minute intervals. In contrast, credit card transactions settle in thirty days or more.

Bitcoin can process approximately 3 transactions per second while credit cards can process upwards of thousands per second.

If you drift off topic and discuss "post time" that's something else.

The block size argument misleads people into thinking bitcoin can process transactions at the same speed credit cards can achieve. That they can "buy coffee with bitcoin" the same way they would with a credit card.

Even with 8 MB block sizes bitcoin will still be extremely slow in comparison to credit cards. Bitcoin will never be fast enough to process thousands of transactions per second the way credit cards do. That's the main point that could be relevent in terms of people questioning whether they want to risk security and decentralization for a relatively small gain in transaction speed which may not fix the issues bitcoin has had with unconfirmed transactions.

And when blocks are not chronically full, zero conf transactions are reliable enough for the majority of retail purchases. At least they were, until RBF broke them.

This is interesting:

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/something-odd-is-happening-at-bitcoins-largest-mining-pool-cm756139

Recently, AntPool has been mining a number of blocks with sizes of around 99 KB, 369 KB and 860 KB. There were dozens of blocks mined around these specific sizes during the month of February. During the times these blocks were mined, everyone else on the network was filling blocks with transactions up to the 1 MB capacity limit.

In addition to the non-full blocks mined by AntPool, the mining pool also created 16 empty blocks in the month of February. The total amount of transaction capacity lost by the network during this time as a result of AntPool's small blocks is not difficult to estimate. Numbers shared by BitFury's Alex Petrov show AntPool's average mined block size in February was around 100 KB less than other mining pools of comparable size.

The number of transactions in a block can vary, but at an average transaction size of 500 bytes , 100 KB would amount to roughly 200 transactions. With 768 blocks mined, AntPool essentially included 153,600 less transactions in February than other large mining pools, such as BitFury or F2Pool , which would have mined with a similar share of the network. This is roughly half of the total number of transactions that are mined on the entire Bitcoin network per day.

In cases like this, increasing block size won't do anything to increase transaction speed when blocks are full to "99 KB, 369 KB and 860 KB" capacity.

[jbreher]

False comparison. On a human scale, bitcoin transactions post in about the same time as credit card transactions - a couple seconds. Bitcoin transactions settle in several ten minute intervals. In contrast, credit card transactions settle in thirty days or more.

Bitcoin can process approximately 3 transactions per second while credit cards can process upwards of thousands per second.

Bitcoin -- in the form of Bitcoin Cash -- can process about 25 transactions a second. And for the interval of time when demand does not outstrip this capacity, zero conf transactions are reasonably safe for many use cases. Which yields a user experience roughly on par with credit cards to the buyer, and markedly superior than credit cards for the vendor.

Will 25/sec be enough five years from now? No, but the incessant march of technology will resolve that issue.

[Hydrogen]

Bitcoin -- in the form of Bitcoin Cash -- can process about 25 transactions a second. And for the interval of time when demand does not outstrip this capacity, zero conf transactions are reasonably safe for many use cases. Which yields a user experience roughly on par with credit cards to the buyer, and markedly superior than credit cards for the vendor.

Will 25/sec be enough five years from now? No, but the incessant march of technology will resolve that issue.

If it is true that unconfirmed transactions are caused by politically motivated DDoS spam rather than block size, increasing block size won't do anything to fix it.



Labeling bitcoin's low transaction speed a "scaling issue" is a failure of terminology.

Its like a website being DDoS spammed and choosing to call it a "bandwidth issue".

[CoinOp]

I think really the airdrops are having the biggest effect rather than the forks.  Why sell your Bitcoin when you can sell from the huge number of airdrops you get just from holding onto them.

[GreenBits]

The micropayment markets have been gone for awhile.  Now the markets in the moderate ranges are being effected....many (almost all) of the early adopters were the moderate ranged markets ---> e-stuff, coffee shops, vape clubs....this is going to have a longer lasting effect I believe....confidence in the platform is waning.  Who's going to invest in a merchant gateway that's unpredictably fickle and subject to becoming obsolete?  I don't know, I'm beginning to think the bitcoin cash syndicate was right all along.

Yezzir. To be honest, paying bills in btc is starting to become a pain in the ass (I dont keep money in exchange wallets unless absolutely necessary, so I send money in as I need it, to Coinbase, to use my shift card.) A 100 dollar bill has a 3-5 dollar additional fee on it, a twenty dollar tank of gas has something like a 10-20% fee on it . It got so bad, fee wise and congestion wise, that I switched over to my eth wallet to fund my card. Much faster, much cheaper.


Bitcoin is playing a dangerous game. Nostalgia is great, but we are going to get left in the dust.