Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold, and Bitcoin 2x... Oh my!

[White sugar]

What is the difference from the past? There are already thousands of alts around and any miner can mine anything they want.

The only difference now is the marketing and the FUD that affects only the noobs

[Qunenin]

Question, why is it that this forum, or anyone around crypto would be interested in your opinion? One and two sentence comments here are there from people are one thing, you, on the other hand, expect people to read page after page describing your opinions? Only the stupid consider these forks to be different form other alt coin releases, although apparently, most of the community is that dumb. It is pleasant to watch them run and scatter and act stupid in regards to them, and it is nice to profit from their mindless zombie-isms.

[Rinaze]

Same as the August 01 fork. I believe this will make bitcoin more stronger. Will have some minor collapse though before a rapid growth.

Unfortunately the potential November hard fork is way different than the August soft fork. August soft fork resulted in another alternate coin named Bitcoin Cash while (potentially once again) the New York Agreement will result in another coin named Bitcoin. How's that the same when the latter is a great war to replace Bitcoin itself?

[Herbert2020]

one thing that needs to be mentioned and repeated over and over and even stickied on top of all bitcoin related places, so that everyone remembers it, is the following:

bitcoin is what the majority says it is.
you can fork bitcoin as much as you want and with as little hashrate as you want. but in the end if the majority accepts that fork, it will be bitcoin. as an example you can always look at bitcoin cash. the majority said it is an altcoin so it is an altcoin. and the same will always be true about any other fork.

[mimagneto]

(This is the first part in a series of posts in which I aim to thoroughly describe my viewpoint on the recent Bitcoin forks. Reading only one part in this series may lead you to a wrong conclusion. Stay tuned to get a thorough snapshot of my viewpoint.)


I would like to clarify that the title is sarcasm. The recent Bitcoin forks are (approximately) the five millionth (more sarcasm) forks of bitcoin/blockhain technology/ideology. Many forks have come (and most have already have gone) before, and there is no doubt that there are many more to come in the future.

Read all of part one here: www.decentralized.tech/blogs/part-1-bitcoin-core-bitcoin-cash-bitcoin-gold-and-bitcoin-2x-oh-my

Good Evening CoinHoarder,

I've been trying to research Bitcoin Gold and found https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2240541.1260.  Is this the same Bitcoin Gold that you're talking about?  Did the choice to change from a GPU/Equihash Algo switch to a POS system based coin with a 95% Airdrop?  

Update:  Some further research turned up even more "Bitcoin Gold" coin references:  http://btcgpu.org/  and https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/bitcoin-gpu/  as well as BitcoinG referenced here in this ANN post, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2240541.msg22707008#msg22707008.  BitcoinG, BTCGPU, and BTG, which is the real Bitcoin Gold that is set to come out October 25 or all they are the same thing?  If so then Bitcoin Gold is POS and on the waves platform?  It's all a bit confusing, please advise.


Thank you,
mimagneto

[Wind_FURY]

Another thing we should be against is when the top Bitcoin merchants and the largest miners come together to make an agreement expecting the community to follow them.

But what if we consider that in a different way?  For example, in capitalism generally, no company brings a product to market expecting people not to use it.  They all want people to use their products.  They bring something to market with the expectation of making money and being a profitable company.  That's how it has always been.  It's down to you, the consumer, to decide which product you want to use.  You even have the right to boycott companies if you don't believe them to be behaving ethically.

We are talking about Bitcoin, hard forks and its community. It is an open source project, not a "product" some company made. If you start thinking about Bitcoin as some "product" that should be controlled by a group of "companies" then you are lost.

The alternative is asking for a centralised authority, usually a government, to dictate which products can or can't come to the market, with issues around protectionism, "the Nanny-State", corruption and monopoly becoming all too prevalent.  No one wants that.  Or at least, I hope they don't.  So we let the market sort it out.  The best product gets the highest market share, in theory, at least.  And agreements don't necessarily create the best products.

I agree, let the market sort it out. But it is not only that, there is the community too. If the majority of nodes start running Segwit2x/btc1 then ok. If not, then the miners will have a big problem having their blocks accepted. Remember, nodes give demand for blocks that the miners make.

So why fight it when you can't prevent it without sacrificing the very thing that makes it good?  It's either a free-for-all where everyone competes, or you put someone, or a group of someones, in a position of power in the vague hope that they will protect your interests, even though it usually just turns out that they selfishly serve their own interests instead when they realise no one can stop them.

I'd argue that no one should be against it when you stop to consider the alternative.

As you said, let the market decide. If there is a fight, let that chaos bring us to a better place.

[pooya87]

(This is the first part in a series of posts in which I aim to thoroughly describe my viewpoint on the recent Bitcoin forks. Reading only one part in this series may lead you to a wrong conclusion. Stay tuned to get a thorough snapshot of my viewpoint.)


I would like to clarify that the title is sarcasm. The recent Bitcoin forks are (approximately) the five millionth (more sarcasm) forks of bitcoin/blockhain technology/ideology. Many forks have come (and most have already have gone) before, and there is no doubt that there are many more to come in the future.

Read all of part one here: www.decentralized.tech/blogs/part-1-bitcoin-core-bitcoin-cash-bitcoin-gold-and-bitcoin-2x-oh-my

Good Evening CoinHoarder,

I've been trying to research Bitcoin Gold and found https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2240541.1260.  Is this the same Bitcoin Gold that you're talking about?  Did the choice to change from a GPU/Equihash Algo switch to a POS system based coin with a 95% Airdrop? 

Update:  Some further research turned up even more "Bitcoin Gold" coin references:  http://btcgpu.org/  and https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/bitcoin-gpu/  as well as BitcoinG referenced here in this ANN post, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2240541.msg22707008#msg22707008.  BitcoinG, BTCGPU, and BTG, which is the real Bitcoin Gold that is set to come out October 25 or all they are the same thing?  If so then Bitcoin Gold is POS and on the waves platform?  It's all a bit confusing, please advise.


Thank you,
mimagneto

lately there has been a lot of same altcoins with the same name being released each of them on a different platform.
this link you shared first is called BitcoinG which is on Waves platform and it has an airdrop which you just give him your Waves address
there is also another one called BitGold which is on bitshares. this one is older. https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitgold/

the new fork which is forking from bitcoin and it is on October 25 is called bitcoin gold or bitcoin GPU (both names). and the website for it is http://btcgpu.org/

[Kakmakr]

I just love these forks. They come and go as easily as I pass wind and every time I get some free coins to sell. I use the proceeds from these free coins to buy more bitcoins. Let the people like Roger Ver and his partners, who are supporting these chains, pay for our legacy bitcoins. Suckers are born every day! ^LoL^

We see them come and we see them go.... forkoff as much as you want. ^smile^

[DooMAD]

Another thing we should be against is when the top Bitcoin merchants and the largest miners come together to make an agreement expecting the community to follow them.

But what if we consider that in a different way?  For example, in capitalism generally, no company brings a product to market expecting people not to use it.  They all want people to use their products.  They bring something to market with the expectation of making money and being a profitable company.  That's how it has always been.  It's down to you, the consumer, to decide which product you want to use.  You even have the right to boycott companies if you don't believe them to be behaving ethically.

We are talking about Bitcoin, hard forks and its community. It is an open source project, not a "product" some company made. If you start thinking about Bitcoin as some "product" that should be controlled by a group of "companies" then you are lost.

Nope, I've made my thoughts about control in Bitcoin pretty plain.  I feel that no one group can achieve anything of real worth unless there is a natural synergy between Devs, Miners and Users.  Developers, in a sense, are competing for market share, as all they can really do is release what they think is the right code and hope that the other participants in Bitcoin agree, but now other developers have other ideas, resulting in competition and rivalry.  I was just drawing a comparison with products and companies to illustrate.  But whatever happens, no one is in control.

The alternative is asking for a centralised authority, usually a government, to dictate which products can or can't come to the market, with issues around protectionism, "the Nanny-State", corruption and monopoly becoming all too prevalent.  No one wants that.  Or at least, I hope they don't.  So we let the market sort it out.  The best product gets the highest market share, in theory, at least.  And agreements don't necessarily create the best products.

I agree, let the market sort it out. But it is not only that, there is the community too. If the majority of nodes start running Segwit2x/btc1 then ok. If not, then the miners will have a big problem having their blocks accepted. Remember, nodes give demand for blocks that the miners make.

This is the part I find most intriguing.  What does the real demand look like?  Who really cares and are they willing to run a full node to show it?  How many 2x non-mining nodes will there be after the fork?  How many is enough to maintain the network securely?  Could there be geographical gaps in the network topology if there aren't sufficient nodes in certain regions?  It's all going to be a pretty fascinating learning experience that will hopefully provide useful data and statistics for the future.

So why fight it when you can't prevent it without sacrificing the very thing that makes it good?  It's either a free-for-all where everyone competes, or you put someone, or a group of someones, in a position of power in the vague hope that they will protect your interests, even though it usually just turns out that they selfishly serve their own interests instead when they realise no one can stop them.

I'd argue that no one should be against it when you stop to consider the alternative.

As you said, let the market decide. If there is a fight, let that chaos bring us to a better place.

Amen.

[supercanada1]

one thing that needs to be mentioned and repeated over and over and even stickied on top of all bitcoin related places, so that everyone remembers it, is the following:

bitcoin is what the majority says it is.
you can fork bitcoin as much as you want and with as little hashrate as you want. but in the end if the majority accepts that fork, it will be bitcoin. as an example you can always look at bitcoin cash. the majority said it is an altcoin so it is an altcoin. and the same will always be true about any other fork.

Well you are right but no need to be worrying the less and the more often happens in the bitcoin. Just try to keep calm in all the situations the profit will be high someday. It is all about the money that we get from our sweet bitcoin. Bitcoin has a lot of the potential in all the areas as it is the currency it is the gold and now it is being more profit able as the bitcoin coin.

[flippener]

Luckily their attempts have been marked by continuous failed altcoins...
"Bitcoin Classic" failure
"Bitcoin XT" failure
"Bitcoin Unlimited" failure
"Bitcoin Cash" failure
coming soon..."Bitcoin Segwit2x" (BTC1) failure

How do you define failure? If I were cynical I might suggest that a successful altcoin is any one that has been launched and where the devs kept, say, 10% back and then sold them in the next few days and made lots of money. If you make a fork from BTC and get 10% of all issued coins on that fork and then sell them you could earn a fortune.

So much that you might be tempted to do it again. And again. And again...

[blockchainmarketus]

Same as the August 01 fork. I believe this will make bitcoin more stronger. Will have some minor collapse though before a rapid growth.

100% agree, the btg, bch, segwit2x are the same people, they fail to destroy btc, then they make money by their fork. whether they fail or not they have made money from the releasing new coins and listed in the exchanger, then they try to profit from forking. They are real suckers , Zombies and Draculas

[rebel92]

I just love these forks. They come and go as easily as I pass wind and every time I get some free coins to sell. I use the proceeds from these free coins to buy more bitcoins. Let the people like Roger Ver and his partners, who are supporting these chains, pay for our legacy bitcoins. Suckers are born every day! ^LoL^

We see them come and we see them go.... forkoff as much as you want. ^smile^

I'll keep it, at least in the short term. If Bitcoin Gold is safe to transfer I'll definitely sell it. With SW2X I'll hold it a bit longer to see how things play out, and to see how people are dealing with lack of replay protection.

[Wind_FURY]

Another thing we should be against is when the top Bitcoin merchants and the largest miners come together to make an agreement expecting the community to follow them.

But what if we consider that in a different way?  For example, in capitalism generally, no company brings a product to market expecting people not to use it.  They all want people to use their products.  They bring something to market with the expectation of making money and being a profitable company.  That's how it has always been.  It's down to you, the consumer, to decide which product you want to use.  You even have the right to boycott companies if you don't believe them to be behaving ethically.

We are talking about Bitcoin, hard forks and its community. It is an open source project, not a "product" some company made. If you start thinking about Bitcoin as some "product" that should be controlled by a group of "companies" then you are lost.

Nope, I've made my thoughts about control in Bitcoin pretty plain.  I feel that no one group can achieve anything of real worth unless there is a natural synergy between Devs, Miners and Users.  Developers, in a sense, are competing for market share, as all they can really do is release what they think is the right code and hope that the other participants in Bitcoin agree, but now other developers have other ideas, resulting in competition and rivalry.  I was just drawing a comparison with products and companies to illustrate.  But whatever happens, no one is in control.

But in Core vs. Segwit2x's case, who should be followed? The users or the miners? The miners are for the NYA, the users are for Core.

I saw this picture from another thread. 74% of the nodes are supporting Core.

The alternative is asking for a centralised authority, usually a government, to dictate which products can or can't come to the market, with issues around protectionism, "the Nanny-State", corruption and monopoly becoming all too prevalent.  No one wants that.  Or at least, I hope they don't.  So we let the market sort it out.  The best product gets the highest market share, in theory, at least.  And agreements don't necessarily create the best products.

I agree, let the market sort it out. But it is not only that, there is the community too. If the majority of nodes start running Segwit2x/btc1 then ok. If not, then the miners will have a big problem having their blocks accepted. Remember, nodes give demand for blocks that the miners make.

This is the part I find most intriguing.  What does the real demand look like?  Who really cares and are they willing to run a full node to show it?  How many 2x non-mining nodes will there be after the fork?  How many is enough to maintain the network securely?  Could there be geographical gaps in the network topology if there aren't sufficient nodes in certain regions?  It's all going to be a pretty fascinating learning experience that will hopefully provide useful data and statistics for the future.

Segwit2x nodes should be deployed as early as now I suppose, or those blocks will have no blockchain to end up on. Being a hard fork will not make it easier.

So why fight it when you can't prevent it without sacrificing the very thing that makes it good?  It's either a free-for-all where everyone competes, or you put someone, or a group of someones, in a position of power in the vague hope that they will protect your interests, even though it usually just turns out that they selfishly serve their own interests instead when they realise no one can stop them.

I'd argue that no one should be against it when you stop to consider the alternative.

As you said, let the market decide. If there is a fight, let that chaos bring us to a better place.

Amen.

Amen again.

[rindo]

A new division on the Bitcoin network is due to take place in November. The proposal SegWit2x aims to implement a change in the maximum size of the Bitcoin transaction blocks. If implemented, the blocks may have a minimum capacity limit of two megabytes (2MB) and a maximum of eight megabytes (8MB). However, SegWit2x is highly controversial. Most of the crypto community, which involves Bitcoin developers, companies, mining pools and users, does not agree with the hard fork. Some of them are involved in a kind of protest under the banner "NO2X".

[Pursuer]

I am supporting tge fork that qill happen this oct. But my problem is,I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO PUT MY BITCOIN to get the BTG. So guys which wallets support this forking?

you only need to hold the "key". the key is called the private key. if you have it, you can claim this fork coins and all the future fork coins that are similar.

tell us which wallet you use so we can tell you if you have access to the private keys or not.
if you are using bitcoin wallets like Bitcoin Core, Armory, Electrum, Multibit, Blockchain.info,... you have the private keys
if you are using services like Coinbase, Xapo, exchanges,... as you wallet then you do not have the private keys and you will only receive the forked coins IF these services decide to be generous and give them to you.

[surix]

Bitcoin is an opensource software so they can do whatever they want! And soon the market will be tired of all these hardfork thing and price will not even move. For now let's see what will happen. I'm not worried about BTC gold, more about BTC 2x...

[salihno71]

What fork do you support and what positive advantages do these forks have on Bitcoin? I believe only a supporter of a fork and people looking forward to split their coins will have the same sentiment as giving them a chance.

I also want to know your thoughts in Jeff Garzik's decision on not including replay protection in Segwit2x/btc1.

The fact that there will be no replay protection in 2x is really worrisome and i have a feeling that this forthcoming fork might do some real damage to the bitcoin. And it also shows the attitude of the proponents which are obviously prepared to go with their heads trough the wall just to prove their points.

[CoinHoarder]

10/10/17 Update:

(This is the second part in a series of posts in which I aim to thoroughly describe my viewpoint on the recent Bitcoin forks. Reading only one part in this series may lead you to a wrong conclusion. Stay tuned to get a thorough snapshot of my viewpoint.)

Social Consensus

It has been years since I started following the numerous debates and commentary regarding which cryptocurrency everyone fancies. One measuring stick has always been regurgitated ad naseam. No matter how many years have passed, how many times its been debated, or whoever weighs in on the debate, different consensus algorithms are championed by different people, and for different reasons.

Read all of part two here: https://www.decentralized.tech/blogs/part-2-bitcoin-core-bitcoin-cash-bitcoin-gold-and-bitcoin-2x-oh-my

[CoinHoarder]

What fork do you support and what positive advantages do these forks have on Bitcoin? I believe only a supporter of a fork and people looking forward to split their coins will have the same sentiment as giving them a chance.

I also want to know your thoughts in Jeff Garzik's decision on not including replay protection in Segwit2x/btc1.

I am getting there. I only have so much time to spend on each blog post, and there is a lot to cover for someone to fully understand my stance. Bear with me.  

Question, why is it that this forum, or anyone around crypto would be interested in your opinion? One and two sentence comments here are there from people are one thing, you, on the other hand, expect people to read page after page describing your opinions? Only the stupid consider these forks to be different form other alt coin releases, although apparently, most of the community is that dumb. It is pleasant to watch them run and scatter and act stupid in regards to them, and it is nice to profit from their mindless zombie-isms.

You must be fun at parties. Although you might not be interested in reading about peoples' opinions on cryptocurrencies, there are plenty of people around these forums that are (as evidenced by Google Analytics of my web site, which is much more substantial than your petty rant). No one is forcing you to read my blog posts. Stay far away from my web site and read all of the three sentence posts (or less) here that your heart desires!

(This is the first part in a series of posts in which I aim to thoroughly describe my viewpoint on the recent Bitcoin forks. Reading only one part in this series may lead you to a wrong conclusion. Stay tuned to get a thorough snapshot of my viewpoint.)


I would like to clarify that the title is sarcasm. The recent Bitcoin forks are (approximately) the five millionth (more sarcasm) forks of bitcoin/blockhain technology/ideology. Many forks have come (and most have already have gone) before, and there is no doubt that there are many more to come in the future.

Read all of part one here: www.decentralized.tech/blogs/part-1-bitcoin-core-bitcoin-cash-bitcoin-gold-and-bitcoin-2x-oh-my

Good Evening CoinHoarder,

I've been trying to research Bitcoin Gold and found https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2240541.1260.  Is this the same Bitcoin Gold that you're talking about?  Did the choice to change from a GPU/Equihash Algo switch to a POS system based coin with a 95% Airdrop?  

Update:  Some further research turned up even more "Bitcoin Gold" coin references:  http://btcgpu.org/  and https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/bitcoin-gpu/  as well as BitcoinG referenced here in this ANN post, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2240541.msg22707008#msg22707008.  BitcoinG, BTCGPU, and BTG, which is the real Bitcoin Gold that is set to come out October 25 or all they are the same thing?  If so then Bitcoin Gold is POS and on the waves platform?  It's all a bit confusing, please advise.


Thank you,
mimagneto

Hello there! Bitcoin Gold deserves its own part of this series. It is coming soon! I ill try to start posting a new blog each day. I will likely break this topic (Bitcoin and its forks) into about 5 or 6 parts. Cheers!