Bitcoin itself doesn't fork, it's only correct to say that Bitcoin forked when there's a major split in the network and both are claiming to be Bitcoin. Instead you should say that people are creating altcoins by forking Bitcoin. I don't know if people still do it, probably yes, but it's irrelevant if those forks are not listed on exchanges, because you can't do anything with them. The hype around BTC forks died a long time ago, these days the hype is about Bitcoin NFTS and new altcoins.
I get that..you knew what I meant. I also understand what you’re saying overall. There’s a few forks that are worth something still and not dead..bcash ($240), bitcoin gold ($23), BSV, hard fork of Bcash ($73). I think there’s one or two others worth a few bucks. Bitcoin Diamond was worth something at one point, but it’s now at .08 cents, and so dying it is , but not dead. It’s nothing crazy but it’s incorrect to say they died. Sadly the Bcash and BSV community are very much alive.
Edit: I know this is not really supposed to be brought up, but it goes hand in hand (hope mods understand) but I'm curious about all this as for say monero and ethereum as well.
There is nothing wrong with this subject or with bringing it up. You just have to learn to use more accurate terminology.
To answer your question, there is nothing stopping anybody from creating a copy of Bitcoin protocol or Bitcoin blockchain and creating a new altcoin like BCH, BCH-SV, BSV, BTCX, BTD,.... like 2017. The only thing stopping them is the fact that creating such useless copies can only work for a little while at the beginning (ie. 2017) but people slowly learn about their uselessness and most importantly learn how to dump their "airdropped coins" which means the price of these shitcoins drops a lot quicker now compared to the beginning where majority of users were confused about how they should sell them.
Actually I think it’s yourself who’s confused. I know the terminology. I’ve been around for a mn. A fork is split off of a coin, of course the reasoning and how it’s handled is broken down by what type of fork (soft / hard). The blockchain records the split, so it’s not just a copy of the code. Anyone can copy most coins code. If this is what a fork was, there’d be no reason for the terminology to exist, it wouldn’t be a facilitated split registered on the blockchain. Copying code is simply creating an altcoin. It has no tie to any coins blockchain or ever has (sure it’s connected in how it’s just taken/stolen code..but there’s no facilitation taking place within btc for it to be created, so a different story). Bitcoin Cash, the first fork, did more than just copy bitcoins code, they changed it (block size). There’s a reason you get to keep the forks, and store or sell them…because it was split off from coins you owned. Its not an air drop.
Also I was saying I hope it’s okay to discuss as I was referring to alts forking being discussed, not Bitcoin.
Bitcoin itself doesn't fork, it's only correct to say that Bitcoin forked when there's a major split in the network and both are claiming to be Bitcoin. Instead you should say that people are creating altcoins by forking Bitcoin. I don't know if people still do it, probably yes, but it's irrelevant if those forks are not listed on exchanges, because you can't do anything with them. The hype around BTC forks died a long time ago, these days the hype is about Bitcoin NFTS and new altcoins.
I mean they are considered hard forks no? I guess I see what you mean, as to not confuse people. I'm also curious if there's ever been a soft fork.
Edit: I know this is not really supposed to be brought up, but it goes hand in hand (hope mods understand) but I'm curious about all this as for say monero and ethereum as well.
I think you need to draw the distinction between forks, hard forks, and soft forks.
Forking creates an altcoin. That's when you just take the bitcoin code and change it how you want to create an altcoin. Lots of older altcoins were created this way, well before the BCH fork that started the trend of trying to pass off altcoins as Bitcoin and using the Bitcoin name to try to trick people.
And then upgrading the actual Bitcoin network would be either hard forks or soft forks. And these get voted on to pass them so they can be implemented.
A hard fork would not be backwards compatible, so basically it would be a clean break saying we don't care about the network not working for certain people or whatever anymore we just want to update the network without worrying about those sorts of consequences. This would create two separate blockchains, two separate protocols. Anyone still operating on the old bitcoin protocol after the hard fork would be completely separated from the updated protocol. Basically this could lead to a split in bitcoin itself.
A soft fork is a backwards compatible way to update the network protocol. And this is what has essentially been decided is the best way to upgrade Bitcoin so everything stays consistent, bitcoin stays immutable, everything keeps working, and network participants can upgrade at their leisure because everything still works no matter which version of the protocol you use. People running the old version just can't do whatever the new updated version does.
Appreciate the detailed response. I’m familiar with the types of forks. I just didn’t exactly break down the terminology or word it exactly correct. I also know the majority (if not all) were hard forks. Edit : forgetting there have been, like SegWit. Not sure if Taproot is also considered a soft fork but I would imagine it is. So I think there’s been two soft forks
