[...] the "clone coin" is an almost literal copy of Bitcoin
including the PoW algorithm.
Yes, I think also Back was referring to these "clone coins". But my point is that from the moment of the fork, once it's clear that the coin is weaker than the original, they're comparable with "regular altcoins". They have different branding and use cases. Only very stubborn "big blockers" refer to BCH as "the Bitcoin". But also they're not unique with respect of sharing SHA256 mining (see Peercoin, Namecoin and others).
I agree in part. The problem is that "when it becomes clear one is the weaker",
it should be abandoned or crippled by neglect, since the hash should be used to
strengthen the single strong chain where the "incentives" are, in theory, better.
The fact, that BCH is still around and above 500 USD means that there is more
occurring with this "clone coin". Thus, it is an attacking device and not an actual
token for transaction or speculation, since it is being manipulated through the
human markets.
Peercoin and Namecoin do both use SHA256, but their purposes are not as attacks
on Bitcoin, but are for new theories and ideas. Peercoin attempted to solve PoW
centralization by adding PoS and having and infinite coin supply, and Namecoin is
used for website domain registration. So though they are SHA256, I consider them
regular altcoins since no one will realistically use those tokens as payment in the
future, especially when majority of higher level development is occurring on Bitcoin,
when it come to the SHA256 coins.
In this situation both the real coin and the clone
can not survive long term, one will be consumed by the other like blackholes
circling each other.
I don't agree. There is already a precedent for the medium-term evolution of a hard fork: Ethereum Classic. It has diverged rapidly from the original Ethereum, and is doing fairly well, but never really competed with the original (although, in this case, the "original" in the sense of "consensus" is ETC, not ETH that forked away from it). I expect Bitcoin Cash to evolve in a similar way, into a different cryptocurrency.
Again, I agree in part. ETC was created in protest that block work could be undone
if the ignorant or incentivized majority wished it. IMO this negates the purpose of
blockchains and was a direct insult to our field. It was a revision of definitions and
purposes. Though I can understand it (lawsuits, bugs, and etc) and we all learned
much from it, I disagree with their choice of action.
The reasons why I see ETH/ETC different from BTC/BCH is that with ETH, it was
assumed that they would be going fully (or last I heard a hybrid) PoS system, as
was originally intended before the token offering. When ETC stated they would
maintain the "old chain", they stated that they would likely not go and follow
the PoS change, but keep PoW. So because of this, ETC's block consensus
system of PoW would be different than ETH's future PoS, so in a sense they will
be like regular altcoin competitors, when PoS comes about, as opposed to truly
parasitic mining like BCH.
When ETH and ETC "split" there was not much chain hopping occurring, that I
recall. When majority miners followed ETH, they were consistent and stuck with
their choice. When this is compared to BTC and BCH, over 40% of Bitcoin's hash
went to and bounced around between the two chains. That is very risky, directly
parasitic, and in theory shouldn't have happened under normal game theory
circumstances. But, you may be correct in that both chains will survive like
with ETH/ETC, though I think the situation is not really similar.
I don't share your fears with respect to governments and bankers. Even inside the ecosystem of a state- or banker-created clone coin, "techno-anarchists" can achieve dominance because the technical system continues to be decentralized. It's however possible that these people do not even want to participate in it, staying with the original, and thus a heavily unbalanced and possibly hierarchic community would evolve, like in the case of many altcoins (and possibly already within Bitcoin Cash).
It is not so much a fear as much as an inevitability for me. One day, the time
will come, and then what was done today, will determine our possibilities later.
I do not think that "techno-anarchists" can exist within the system that I think
is inevitable and I do not think we should help move Bitcoin into positions in
which it will be easier to be captured. I believe BCH only exists as a response
to the miners not being able to force a change on BTC.
I expect that if a government cryptocurrency is created and mandated as the
legal tender of a country, Bitcoin and all altcoins will be deemed to be illegal
in that area. That government will then use their resources that were used for
physical currency development, creation, and expenses, and turn that toward
enforcement of their new totalitarian token and system.
Your belief is basically correct, with the assumption that the future is not
totalitarian and restrictive of human rights. If the future is better than today,
with more freedoms and rights, even for in China, than you may be correct
and decentralized Bitcoin can still exist and function in light of government
tokens. But I do not project the future going in this direction, when you add
in elements such as resource depletion, population growth, and financial,
societal, and political failures. There will be a failure point that is so
insurmountable that the only form of appropriate action by human
governments will be martial law and restrictions of human rights.
A much more dangerous situation than a "clean fork" like Bitcoin Cash, at least for the short term acceptance of Bitcoin, is a contentious fork like that who will be probably taking place in November. If there is no clear dominance of one chain over the other one, e.g. if 70% of the miners join Segwit2x and 70% of the users stay with "Bitcoin Core", then both ecosystems could be damaged.
Yes, I agree. Though I think BCH fork was very bad because over 40% of hash
actually entertained it, the November fork has the possibility of being worse
because a high percentage of exchanges and services could entertain it. Though
I think at the last minute, there will be no hardfork since it is too risky and places
the corporations in liabilities that they have not understood yet.
Ultimately, I do not believe in multiple chains, even in disputes of future courses
of action for the network. Everything is possible in time, and when certain people
want to make changes now that inflict harm, it is attributed to other participants
in the system. It seems some parties are fine disenfranchising other parties, which
was what Satoshi was attempting to prevent with the Bitcoin system. But they
instead ignore this aspect and feel they have been victimized by Consensus.
Anyway, back to the Back quote, I think that if the future is many BTC chains or
"clean forks" and some of them are even mined or controlled by governments or
banks, that it will directly harm the "scarcity" and "store of value" argument of
BTC. BTC miners should be incentivized to protect the single chain and thus
ensure the future of the network and its token. Allowing multiple clone coins
or clone chains to exist, IMO, is a form of exploit on the PoW algo that is only
feasible when some outside network incentive is in play, and IMO likely a
government attack and testing.
