Will Bitcoin spinoffs devalue Bitcoin over the long term?

[tiCeR]

After Bitcoin Cash split from the main Bitcoin blockchain, a plethora of other cryptocurrencies followed suit. First came Bitcoin Cash, then came Bitcoin Diamond, Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin SV, and so on. Each fork is basically the same Bitcoin with an identical supply (21 million coins) and genesis block. What makes them different is their approach to scalability. Every Bitcoin fork that is created, essentially multiplies Bitcoin's total supply two or three times its size. This is sort of a double spend (although not in a direct manner). Imagine if we had 10 Bitcoin spinoffs, that means the supply will increase to 210,000! I'd bet if the Bitcoin Cash hard fork didn't happen, we'd still have only one Bitcoin (BTC) with a price higher than today. I'm still wrapping my head around this so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Do you think Bitcoin-based forks (spinoffs) will devalue the original Bitcoin (BTC) over the long term? If not, why? Don't we have too many forks already? Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

I don't think it will devalue Bitcoin. Maybe very slightly as those advocating the fork may not be ok with what's happening around BTC. But they also know that not having BTC in your portfolio is quite naive. Even Roger Ver I guarantee still holds a lot of BTC compared to his Bitcoin Cash holdings.

The only thing you can fork is the database. Everything that has been built around a certain coin, the whole ecosystem, community and partnerships and whatever you want to think of, simply can't be forked.

[michellee]

no, it will have no effect on bitcoin in the long run. although in the future there will be another hard fork and produce a new copy of bitcoin, there will be no significant impact for bitcoin development. because people prefer to hold BTC, and assume all copies are altcoins. if it is possible to devalue bitcoin, it should have happened since the first hard fork. but the reality is not like that.

The hard fork of bitcoin will not have a chance to compete with bitcoin because they are split from the main bitcoin blockchain. It is no problem if there are more hard forks because that will not affect bitcoin. Bitcoin price itself will still increase as we predict, while the hard-fork coin can not follow in price. Yes, the hard-fork coin will be an altcoin, but that can help us profit too as bitcoin, but the profit will not be bigger.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Bitcoin spinoffs, how hadn't I thought of this before? I'll be using it from now on. 

Actually, Bitcoin spinoffs devalue themselves over the long term, not Bitcoin itself. There are no Bitcoin Cash or ABC or SV users that actually believe they'll surpass Bitcoin. There are some minor exceptions, but not the canon.

Bitcoin is being devaluated if the hard fork is promoted as the real Bitcoin with cunning propaganda. For example, Craig Wright promotes Bitcoin SV as the real Bitcoin which may devaluate the real one slightly and temporarily.

So, no. I don't believe they do it over the long term.

[pooya87]

What makes them different is their approach to scalability.

Just because someone makes a claim doesn't mean it is true. For example bcash block size is 0.15 bitcoin block size, in other words they didn't scale shit.

Every Bitcoin fork that is created, essentially multiplies Bitcoin's total supply two or three times its size.

Wrong.
If I print US dollars on my printer do I increase US dollar's total supply?

This is sort of a double spend (although not in a direct manner).

No it is not.

Imagine if we had 10 Bitcoin spinoffs, that means the supply will increase to 210,000!

Wrong again. Imagine your own signature campaign that is paying you in bitcoin, if they pay you the same amount in bcash (that is 0.0022 bcash) would you accept it?
Now you see how ridiculous your claims look?

I'd bet if the Bitcoin Cash hard fork didn't happen, we'd still have only one Bitcoin (BTC) with a price higher than today.

That can be said about any shitcoin that has been created so far. Do you think Dash hasn't claimed to be "better bitcoin" a hundred times? Because it has.

Do you think Bitcoin-based forks (spinoffs) will devalue the original Bitcoin (BTC) over the long term? If not, why? Don't we have too many forks already? Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

In short term they can always cause some drama, like they did back in 2017 when bcash was mining thousands of blocks per day, but at the end of the day they are still considered shitcoins and in long run their prices will always keep going down so nobody cares about what they do.

[Abiky]

Knowing that these forked-off communities are huge minorities, not really. The effect on bitcoin's value is just so minuscule that it might as well not exist.

On the other hand, it might do have a small effect on people's perception of Bitcoin. Though definitely wrong, some people actually think that creating a Bitcoin fork means that you're inflating Bitcoin's supply. One of those people being Peter Schiff himself.

As long as spinoffs are the minority, Bitcoin's value will remain untouched for the foreseeable future. Some people think new forks simply inflate the total supply of Bitcoin. But it really doesn't work that way. I've thought about this at first, when Bitcoin Cash was born back in August 2017.

What matters is that Bitcoin stays true of the decentralization and censorship-resistant properties of Blockchain tech. Bitcoin will only become scarcer with each block reward halving. I'd be disappointed if developers increase Bitcoin's max supply in the future. That would ruin the deflationary model of Bitcoin. As long as supply remains the same, Bitcoin will only rise in value over time. Just my thoughts

[mk4]

I'd be disappointed if developers increase Bitcoin's max supply in the future. That would ruin the deflationary model of Bitcoin. As long as supply remains the same, Bitcoin will only rise in value over time. Just my thoughts

It wouldn't happen simply because literally not a single Bitcoiner is incentivized to support such change. Not only it would affect the deflationary part, but more importantly, Bitcoin's predictable and solid monetary policy.

[pooya87]

Bitcoin will only become scarcer with each block reward halving.

Bitcoin is scarce because it has a max supply, with each block halving this is not going to change since every block is introducing new coins to the circulating supply, in other words the supply is increasing.

I'd be disappointed if developers increase Bitcoin's max supply in the future.

Developers don't own the right to change bitcoin, this is not some shitcoin like ethereum where the owner flips a switch and blocks are reversed
Developers can only write code and make proposals, it is the community that has to accept or reject them.

As long as supply remains the same, Bitcoin will only rise in value over time.

Actually the value will continue to rise as long as the "demand" is rising which is the adoption.

[maxreish]

We've witnessed this before, those fork doesn't compare or doesn't even beat the original coin that they have just copied. It will just always the "copy cat" and investors always choose the origin. Like bitcoin, they made different forks, different altcoins just to compensate those weakness of it but until now, the value is increasing.

[Zedpastin]

Bitcoin is probably benefiting from the amount of hard forks there has been and the amount of other altcoins that have been created because they usually fail which begs the question to the people investing why has this coin failed and not Bitcoin which would hopefully encourage them to check out the technical differences and see why Bitcoin is superior.

[Abiky]

It wouldn't happen simply because literally not a single Bitcoiner is incentivized to support such change. Not only it would affect the deflationary part, but more importantly, Bitcoin's predictable and solid monetary policy.

As long as the majority stays with Bitcoin (BTC), nothing else matters. Forks are simply copies of the original project. Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV, and other derivatives will never surpass Bitcoin in terms of market cap and mainstream adoption because they simply "mimic" the original Blockchain network. There's a lot more to crypto than just adding a minor tweak like increasing the block size for on-chain scalability.

Most people still use Bitcoin regardless of the high fees and slow transaction confirmation times, simply because it's the most decentralized and trusted cryptocurrency in the world. The ever-rising number of forks means that the whole space is decentralized and open source. If it wasn't like that, Bitcoin would've been the only cryptocurrency in existence today. I don't think spinoffs will make a huge impact over Bitcoin's price in the long term if only a small minority support them. Just my opinion

[adzino]

No they won't. There are hundreds of bitcoin forks. Anyone can make a fork. Most of them dies. Others barely survive. Once they fork, they are no longer bitcoin or related to bitcoin at all. There can only be one bitcoin. It would have devalued bitcoin if it affected the supply of bitcoin. But forks don't do that. Moreover, when forks happen, you own both the coins. It's not like you will have to dump bitcoin to get your fork. It might (highly unlikely) causes some affect on the price, but the affect is usually short lived. Forks are just another shitcoin .

[DapanasFruit]

I can still remember those years when forks were then a trendy and people can still be swayed to support them. right now, we don't care already if there will be another fork of Bitcoin or not because we are now sure that spinoffs will never be better than the original and that they will never be able to be on the same level as Bitcoin. Now, having said that, I don't really think that these spinoffs popular or not are big hindrance to the growth of Bitcoin...this is not like those fake designer jeans coming from sweatshop of some developing countries.

[tiCeR]

I can still remember those years when forks were then a trendy and people can still be swayed to support them. right now, we don't care already if there will be another fork of Bitcoin or not because we are now sure that spinoffs will never be better than the original and that they will never be able to be on the same level as Bitcoin. Now, having said that, I don't really think that these spinoffs popular or not are big hindrance to the growth of Bitcoin...this is not like those fake designer jeans coming from sweatshop of some developing countries.

Never say never right? I think having forks is less annoying than many people argue. It is an important feature that allows for political/technical decisions what the community might deem the best way to got forward for Bitcoin. You are correct that so far the original Bitcoin is still the version most people trust but generally speaking it is good to have the possibility to fork (which is essentially because it is open source).

[Caldear]

The Bitcoin fork just borrowed the code of Bitcoin and distributed the coins to Bitcoin holders in direct proportion to Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV and other derivatives will never surpass Bitcoin's market value and mainstream applications. The short-term may affect price fluctuations, but the long-term bullish, Bitcoin fork will make Bitcoin stronger and allow more people to accept and use Bitcoin.

[Vishnu.Reang]

Look at the market cap of these forked coins such as Bitcoin Cash (BCH), Bitcoin SV (BSV) and Bitcoin Gold (BTG). Their combined market cap accounts for less than 3% of the Bitcoin market cap. So it would be wrong to say that the proliferance of these coins caused a reduction in the Bitcoin valuation. The most amount of damage was caused by altcoins (Ethereum, XRP, Dogecoin, Cardano, BNB.etc) and also by the stablecoins (USDT, PAX, USDC and BUSD). And in a way, the forked coins actually created good amount of profit for the Bitcoiners, as they were airdropped to those who were already holding BTC.

[zanezane]

It is unlikely that bitcoin will devalue in this way.

It is unlikely, there are about 2 or 3 forks already but the prices are still doing fine overall. Probably because forks exists as a different crypto and not as an additional supply to bitcoin plus it has to gain the faith of the people that it has a value unlike bitcoin that doesn't have to do it.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

Look at the market cap of these forked coins such as Bitcoin Cash (BCH), Bitcoin SV (BSV) and Bitcoin Gold (BTG). Their combined market cap accounts for less than 3% of the Bitcoin market cap. So it would be wrong to say that the proliferance of these coins caused a reduction in the Bitcoin valuation.

How Many Bitcoin Forks Are There? You will be surprised!!!. If you check the long list of forks, you will discover that forks have very low value on the market, years after the fork time.

The most amount of damage was caused by altcoins (Ethereum, XRP, Dogecoin, Cardano, BNB.etc) and also by the stablecoins (USDT, PAX, USDC and BUSD). And in a way, the forked coins actually created good amount of profit for the Bitcoiners, as they were airdropped to those who were already holding BTC.

Altcoins can not take over the first position of Bitcoin. You can try to compare Ethereum or BNB with Bitcoin. Please take Ripple, Dogecoin and Cardano out of the comparison.

https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/1333966283876954113

Bitcoin moves nearly half a million dollars in value around the globe permissionlessly every second. It was never about transactions per second and coffee. It's all about value transacted per second and a new financial paradigm.

VTPS not TPS. Nothing comes close to BTC

[tiCeR]

After Bitcoin Cash split from the main Bitcoin blockchain, a plethora of other cryptocurrencies followed suit. First came Bitcoin Cash, then came Bitcoin Diamond, Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin SV, and so on. Each fork is basically the same Bitcoin with an identical supply (21 million coins) and genesis block. What makes them different is their approach to scalability. Every Bitcoin fork that is created, essentially multiplies Bitcoin's total supply two or three times its size. This is sort of a double spend (although not in a direct manner). Imagine if we had 10 Bitcoin spinoffs, that means the supply will increase to 210,000! I'd bet if the Bitcoin Cash hard fork didn't happen, we'd still have only one Bitcoin (BTC) with a price higher than today. I'm still wrapping my head around this so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Do you think Bitcoin-based forks (spinoffs) will devalue the original Bitcoin (BTC) over the long term? If not, why? Don't we have too many forks already? Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Yes initially, fork coins will take some market value from bitcoin. The amount of market share will depend on how much hype the coin has. But after a while the market share will consolidate back into bitcoin. To further understand this phenomenon look in to bitcoin dominance and how it oscillates cyclically against altcoins including forks.

the bitcoin market will still belong to bitcoin, although in the market there are many forks of bitcoin and the number is very large I don't think it can be like other coins that use the name "bitcoin" can win the hearts of 20% of genuine bitcoin fans to switch there. bitcoin is way above other fork coins

If they ever had a chance to devalue Bitcoin in any significant way, that change is long gone. Bitcoin Cash probably was the biggest threat in terms of devaluing the real Bitcoin as there was a vibrant discussion around certain specifications. The interesting thing about forks is that you keep your economic interest in the network that has been forked as well. If you hold BTC and you are pro BCH, you still have your BTC after the fork. Very interesting considerations here.

[kryptqnick]

I think Bitcoin Cash was a pretty big threat back when it was created and also because it had strong supporters. But all the rest were increasingly less influential. Overall, I don't think that it's like there's a fixed number of people and their investments, and that they either put everything in Bitcoin or diversify. Instead, there are more and more people investing more and more money in Bitcoin and in other currencies (spinoffs included, as I think we should simply treat them as we do any other altcoins), and I guess the background created by altcoins makes Bitcoin more popular that it would've been without them. So they're not a serious threat anymore, and they are not biting off chunks of potential investments that could go to Bitcoin. They create new demand, getting investments themselves but also boosting BTC's popularity.

[Abiky]

I think Bitcoin Cash was a pretty big threat back when it was created and also because it had strong supporters. But all the rest were increasingly less influential. Overall, I don't think that it's like there's a fixed number of people and their investments, and that they either put everything in Bitcoin or diversify. Instead, there are more and more people investing more and more money in Bitcoin and in other currencies (spinoffs included, as I think we should simply treat them as we do any other altcoins), and I guess the background created by altcoins makes Bitcoin more popular that it would've been without them. So they're not a serious threat anymore, and they are not biting off chunks of potential investments that could go to Bitcoin. They create new demand, getting investments themselves but also boosting BTC's popularity.

I guess you're right. Bitcoin's more popular than ever with spinoffs in play. Bitcoin Cash offered "free money" to BTC holders, effectively increasing crypto/blockchain tech's mainstream adoption. Other forks came after Bitcoin Cash, but they're not as popular as the former project. People will get to choose from one cryptocurrency to another based on their current needs. I don't think spinoffs will devalue Bitcoin in the future, unless they do something that will literally "blow" people's minds.

A minor tweak like increasing the block size capacity is not enough to bring the masses into Bitcoin spinoffs. Considering that Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV, and other forks are simply variants of Bitcoin, it's very unlikely they'll replace the original project anytime soon. Instead of focusing into becoming the "original Bitcoin", competing projects should focus on working together to make our world a better place. With Bitcoin staying true to its "roots", I believe it will become much more valuable than what it is right now within the not-so-distant future. Just my thoughts