Bitcoin’s fork coins are of less value, here is why

[Phu Juck]

Bitcoin has been high of value always compared to its fork coins and here is why:

Instead to its fork coins, Bitcoin has had a very clear goal to be a P2P currency and a store of value, where code does not get changed too easily because Bitcoin wants to be a stead safe haven, where value can be stored easily and maintained easily.
Code changes in Bitcoin have always been controversial and Bitcoin always tried to maintain status quo, where no code gets changed too easily, making Bitcoin a big promise as a safe haven for money.


Some of Bitcoin’s fork coins have been involved in big fraud

As a shady coin, Bitcoin SV is known to be a big scamcoin, where owner Craig Wright has evolved as a disgusting scammer and he was labelled “Faketoshi” for his unproven claims to be Satoshi but Craig Wright could not deliver any proof to be Satoshi.
He only achieved to be a fraudulent scammer because once again, his claims could not be verified as Craig Wright failed to deliver a substantial proof to be Satoshi Nakamoto, so his coins got rightfully dumped


Bitcoin’s fork coins have not gained enough crypto community support

Crypto community support for Bitcoin’s fork coins has been very low and Bitcoin’s fork coins have not gained enough community support for various points such like transaction count, transaction volume or popularity compared to Bitcoin. It has to be said for Bitcoin’s fork coins to be very low crypto community support overall.
Bitcoin’s fork coins are overally used not very much for transactions and it is a massive difference to Bitcoin’s volume and number of transactions.

Bitcoin does not need to be forked

Bitcoin does not need to be forked because it is simply a good coin. We don’t need any fork because Bitcoin is good how it is.
Bitcoin can’t be hacked or destroyed easily
Bitcoin is an amazing store of value
Bitcoin does what it should do: send and receive P2P transactions
Bitcoin’s network doesn’t get down easily like Solana does
Bitcoin has proven to be a good coin for almost 15 years now

We clearly don’t need to fork Bitcoin to make in fundamentally different like so many unsuccessful forks have done and have failed to be an attractive coin.

[Obim34]

Bitcoin has been forked over 100 times, and still none of them are close to Bitcoin utility. If there has been any good reason why Bitcoin has been forked then the process wasn't successful because up till today, all forked coins are not appreciative compared to Bitcoin.



This is a hard fork from Bitcoin, claimed to follow the real Satoshi whitepaper, which tells us there is no Bitcoin replica.

[avikz]

I don't think you would need to list so many reasons to married why the forked coins have less value. The main reason is one - these are all shitcoins and not Bitcoin. As Obim34 pointed out, Bitcoin has been forked over 100 times and we hardly know about them. No one really gives a shit about it!

Bitcoin can get forked for 100 more time but no one will be able to come closer to it. Earlier this Craig Wright was able to make a bit of a noise, but all went down to drain as his claims were proven wrong.

[d5000]

Bitcoin’s fork coins are overally used not very much for transactions and it is a massive difference to Bitcoin’s volume and number of transactions.

While I agree with most of your post, this doesn't seem to be entirely correct. At least it needs a clarification.

Here's a chart of BTC (blue) vs. BCH (red) vs. BSV (yellow) in terms of transaction count:



One can see that while BCH most of the time (exception: during much of 2021) indeed saw much less transactions than Bitcoin, BSV had phases (for several weeks each) where it had up to 100 times Bitcoin's transaction count.

This however is the product of the big block policy: in the BSV community, some apps were developed which could be considered outright spam, like one registering climate data on-chain. It's also highly likely that at least some of these apps were developed by the BSV team or paid by them to demonstrate "usage".

One can say that if BSV saw "real" usage it would have probably massive problems with node decentralization, as the requirements for full nodes would be astronomical.

In terms of "real usage" you probably are correct that there are few "genuine" transactions. However, I am still surprised how well in general BCH is holding its price, it's almost always between 200 and 500 USD per coin. Its price against BTC however is falling almost constantly.

[Bastketsrus]

Bitcoin has been high of value always compared to its fork coins and here is why:

Instead to its fork coins, Bitcoin has had a very clear goal to be a P2P currency and a store of value, where code does not get changed too easily because Bitcoin wants to be a stead safe haven, where value can be stored easily and maintained easily.
Code changes in Bitcoin have always been controversial and Bitcoin always tried to maintain status quo, where no code gets changed too easily, making Bitcoin a big promise as a safe haven for money.


Some of Bitcoin’s fork coins have been involved in big fraud

As a shady coin, Bitcoin SV is known to be a big scamcoin, where owner Craig Wright has evolved as a disgusting scammer and he was labelled “Faketoshi” for his unproven claims to be Satoshi but Craig Wright could not deliver any proof to be Satoshi.
He only achieved to be a fraudulent scammer because once again, his claims could not be verified as Craig Wright failed to deliver a substantial proof to be Satoshi Nakamoto, so his coins got rightfully dumped


Bitcoin’s fork coins have not gained enough crypto community support

Crypto community support for Bitcoin’s fork coins has been very low and Bitcoin’s fork coins have not gained enough community support for various points such like transaction count, transaction volume or popularity compared to Bitcoin. It has to be said for Bitcoin’s fork coins to be very low crypto community support overall.
Bitcoin’s fork coins are overally used not very much for transactions and it is a massive difference to Bitcoin’s volume and number of transactions.

Bitcoin does not need to be forked

Bitcoin does not need to be forked because it is simply a good coin. We don’t need any fork because Bitcoin is good how it is.
Bitcoin can’t be hacked or destroyed easily
Bitcoin is an amazing store of value
Bitcoin does what it should do: send and receive P2P transactions
Bitcoin’s network doesn’t get down easily like Solana does
Bitcoin has proven to be a good coin for almost 15 years now

We clearly don’t need to fork Bitcoin to make in fundamentally different like so many unsuccessful forks have done and have failed to be an attractive coin.

Yeah, Bitcoin’s been solid because it sticks to its core purpose. Most forks either chased hype or made promises they couldn’t keep. At the end of the day, people trust BTC for a reason—it just works.

[nativebtc]

Well said. Bitcoin’s strength is its stability, decentralization, and strong community. Most forks either chase hype or centralize too much. At the end of the day, BTC is still king because it does exactly what it’s supposed to, nothing more, nothing less.

[OcTradism]

Bitcoin fork coins are not Bitcoin and they are simply altcoins. In quality, they are worse than altcoins that were created by original developments of their project founders and developers.

They are worth to be called as Shitcoins that means they are worse than altcoins.

It explains why any shitcoin "Bitcoin fork" die with time.
How Many Bitcoin Forks Are There? You will be surprised!!!
https://forkdrop.io/how-many-bitcoin-forks-are-there
https://www.howtotoken.com/explained/bitcoin-forks-chronology-ultimate-list-forks/

[X-ray]

They have less value because nobody needs them.

Why are we even needing those forks in the first place, the real bitcoin is already perfect and those fork could hardly replicate it other than just become another shitcoin.

[davis196]

Bitcoin does not need to be forked because it is simply a good coin. We don’t need any fork because Bitcoin is good how it is.
Bitcoin can’t be hacked or destroyed easily
Bitcoin is an amazing store of value
Bitcoin does what it should do: send and receive P2P transactions
Bitcoin’s network doesn’t get down easily like Solana does
Bitcoin has proven to be a good coin for almost 15 years now

We clearly don’t need to fork Bitcoin to make in fundamentally different like so many unsuccessful forks have done and have failed to be an attractive coin.

Tell that to all the developers, who forked Bitcoin throughout the years. If there's enough people, who want a hardfork, nobody can stop them to create a forked version of BTC. The topic about whether or not to fork Bitcoin is really old. The current year is 2025, not 2015. This discussion belongs to the past. All the people behind forked versions of BTC like BCH or BSV made lots of money out of the forks. That was the main goal behind the forks, the goal wasn't "to make Bitcoin better", the goal was making easy money.
Anyway, Bitcoin Core wasn't damaged by all the hardfork, the community is strong and the investors would still prefer BTC over the altcoins, which are known as "forked Bitcoins".

[mindrust]

At one point, a fork of btc, bcash (bch) came pretty close to btc’s price if I remember correctly. Nothing else has come any closer ever since.

The reason is simple. Btc is the original. It is the original vision of satoshi nakamoto, the myth, the legend.

Why even waste any time on an inferior product like b-cash or bsv when there is 99.99% heisenberg pure btc exists?

And the markets seem to support my thesis. They ain’t buying any generic crap.

[stwenhao]

Here's a chart of BTC (blue) vs. BCH (red) vs. BSV (yellow) in terms of transaction count:

And? It doesn't count off-chain transactions. LN is not traced at all, as well as sidechains, and other second layers.

Also, if BTC would scale off-chain to more extent, for example by enabling decentralized sidechains, then we could have even less on-chain transactions, even if user activity would increase.

Edit: Not to mention, that if you count transactions, then you assume, that "one user is handled by one transaction", which is not true, for many reasons, for example batched withdrawals from exchanges. If you would count UTXOs or signatures, then it would be a bit more reliable (but also wouldn't show you the full picture, because signatures can be aggregated, and many users can hide behind a single signature).

Also, there are coins, where transactions could be combined on the protocol level. Then, they for example have one huge transaction per block. Does it mean, that their usage is lower, because of their transaction count? If cut-through would be introduced, then usage could increase, while the number of on-chain transactions could decrease at the same time!

[KiaKia]

Tell me if this whole Bitcoin success won't be over if the creator is someone like Roger and others? Bitcoin isn't just successful on its own its the success of the creator himself, Satoshi Nakamoto.

What other forks will never have is Satoshi Nakamoto, a true creator who want this innovation to work, decentralised and digital gold like combined, been faithful to the course is what many other projects can't do.

Bitcoin will always be the original and believe me, it's not just about been the original, all thanks go to Bitcoin creator himself, he made this whole thing possible, because if he is just like every other developer something will have go wrong.

[hd49728]

Tell me if this whole Bitcoin success won't be over if the creator is someone like Roger and others? Bitcoin isn't just successful on its own its the success of the creator himself, Satoshi Nakamoto.

What other forks will never have is Satoshi Nakamoto, a true creator who want this innovation to work, decentralised and digital gold like combined, been faithful to the course is what many other projects can't do.

Forks don't have any capable founders and you can imagine that if they are capable founders, they would develop something originally, not copy and use open source code from Satoshi Nakamoto and Bitcoin. This action is a strong evidence of those founders' incapability, and they can not deny it.

More important, deny it or not, if the market and time show something more clearly, those blockchains die and those fork projects die with time, that's enough. What they believed in, what they said are not important if at the end their projects die.

Satoshi Nakamoto did programmed Bitcoin very outstandingly but the Bitcoin founder did another amazing thing by deciding to leave the project and community forever. This surprising disappearance makes Bitcoin project more decentralized and belong to Bitcoin developer community, nodes and users. Forks are centralized by their founders and core member teams so it's natural why those forks are considered as less valuable than Bitcoin (original Bitcoin).

[Wapfika]

Fork tokens are those devs that want to become the new Bitcoin due to their personal gain.

Bitcoin is community driven coin which means the majority will decide what will be the improvement on Bitcoin while this fork tokens usually just a few devs running their own token without considering the community.

It’s normal that the process of fork tokens will be so low if there’s no community backing it.

[adultcrypto]

They have less value because nobody needs them.

Why are we even needing those forks in the first place, the real bitcoin is already perfect and those fork could hardly replicate it other than just become another shitcoin.

This explains a lot about them and why they are losing relevance on daily basis. In addition to this, one thing that stand against them is that they usually start off with so much hypes but end up delivering little to nothing after raising the curiosity of people. I don't know if it is right to call them shitcoins or not but when they are not offering any real utility, they are not different from memecoins which still come back to shitcoins. One thing is certain, the tech guys that fork these coins do that to enrich themselves.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

Bitcoin has been forked over 100 times, and still none of them are close to Bitcoin utility. If there has been any good reason why Bitcoin has been forked then the process wasn't successful because up till today, all forked coins are not appreciative compared to Bitcoin.



This is a hard fork from Bitcoin, claimed to follow the real Satoshi whitepaper, which tells us there is no Bitcoin replica.

It should interest some of us to know that some or most of this bitcoin forks where meant or targetted at nothing else other than a means for the developers to make money for themselves and as well those who were opportuned to participate in the fork by holding enough bitcoin at the time of the fork to receive good amount of the forked coins.

I believe this is what the op meant by saying that many of the bitcoin fork projects were invloved in massive fraud.

Overall, the current state of all the bitcoin forked coins in the crypto market shows us that there can never be anything as good as the original, many of the people who joined in the forking of bitcoin to create some of this fake version of bitcoin we see around today still ended up selling those fake bitcoin to invest the money in the real and original bitcoin, those who didn't lost out big time.