There is nothing inherently wrong with hard forking bitcoin. Software forks are not "scams".
Quoting Satoshi ...
A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.
I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.
...snip...
...
All Bitcoin forks are counterfeit derivatives of original bitcoin (BTC).
Including, Bitcoin Cash, BCH, BCHN, BCHA, ABC, BSV etc.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_(finance)Excerpt quote;
"In finance, a derivative is a contract that derives its value from the performance of an underlying entity ..."One cannot simply split from the underlying asset and expect the value to gain above the underlying and majority consensus.
The 'fallout' in this regard will always be worse for the split chain. Hence, 'ugly'.
Bitcoin is BTC at
https://bitcoin.org...
Good altcoins, with unique blockchains are code 'forks' and are OK.
Thus, Litecoin should maintain a higher market cap over BCH, for example.
