Why no forks these days?

[mindrust]

People are smarter now they don’t fall for the fork hype anymore. The last half decent fork was bitcoin gold i believe and it hasn’t been doing any good. Unless some big debate like the old blocksize debate happens again, we won’t be seeing any forks with good value. Quantum computers and Jameson Lopp’s proposal to protect bitcoin against qc seems to gather some heat though. We might see something interesting there. Some people might support his proposal and some others might say his idea isn’t the real bitcoin etc and just like that we might have another fork. Real bitcoin and more real bitcoin.

[tread93]

I believe it's because it will not be more beneficial to them, as they can't make money out of it anymore. Just like what happened to Bitcoin Cash and other - where are they now?
But maybe not now, or near future. But what if someone comes again and forks Bitcoin just like Bitcoin Cash and makes hype or claims they they are Satoshi Nakamoto 

Every holder of Bitcoin could grab their other coins too which is crazyyy like imagine how much Satoshi has in just the shitcoins that's gotta be a lot of dough. I'm sure someone has figured what that bitcoin amount is! I just said bitcoin amount instead of dollar amount 

[gmaxwell]

Every holder of Bitcoin could grab their other coins too which is crazyyy like imagine how much Satoshi has in just the shitcoins that's gotta be a lot of dough. I'm sure someone has figured what that bitcoin amount is! I just said bitcoin amount instead of dollar amount  

20% more Bitcoin was achievable from the largest dozen or so.  In theory if you managed to nail the high trading point of each of them more would be possible, but there were people who actually achieved a 20% gain.

Also keep in mind that each of these forks was a huge strain on space. Every fork was basically the same bitcoin blockchain cloned so it took up hundreds of Gigs just for a forked coin which is worth a few pennies each. And they had to keep all those forks in sync which was tough when the nodes were unrealiable.

Most didn't break pruning, so more like 10GB.   You could also in some cases use the same block files for the shared chain with some hacking around the version number handling.

I hated dealing with it, but then I computed the effective $/hr dealing with it was earning and I didn't hate it anymore.

Forks and most altcoins have damaged the perception and adoption of Bitcoin and blockchain technology, there is no way to go around this fact.

I'm doubtful.  I think they pulled away a good number of idiots and fraudsters that otherwise would have been a greater nuisance in Bitcoin and depleted the funds of some fairly bad actors.  It's true that bitcoin sometimes gets blamed for stupidity in other blockchains but at least you can so "no, that was poocoin, not Bitcoin"-- which is a better situation than the same bullshit having happened in Bitcoin.

Question is did the benefits exceed the harms, I'm not sure.  But I do know that people having the freedom to actualize their beliefs (however stupid they are) is a fundamental good.  The same freedom that lets dumbass altcoins exist is what makes it possible for Bitcoin to exist.  I think we should give them some benefit of doubt.

It could be that the purpose of your blockchain was only to serve as a warning to others.

[BayAreaCoins]

Question is did the benefits exceed the harms, I'm not sure.  But I do know that people having the freedom to actualize their beliefs (however stupid they are) is a fundamental good.  The same freedom that lets dumbass altcoins exist is what makes it possible for Bitcoin to exist.  I think we should give them some benefit of doubt.

It could be that the purpose of your blockchain was only to serve as a warning to others.

I fully agree with the statement and logic.

I definitely pray every day that I'm not that meme.

[HelliumZ]

When you read old threads, you will hear of many soft forks and including a few hard forks that gave birth to Bitcoin Cash , Bitcoin gold, Bitcoin SV. The last one should be BSV in 2018.
What happened differently  that there are no threats or signs of forking?

Generally, investors are currently not looking to invest in any altcoin/shitcoin other than Bitcoin, which is why the popularity of forks of Bitcoin and other altcoins is gradually decreasing.
Moreover, if you invest in altcoins, you will not get profit even after holding that investment for a long time, as you can get by investing in Bitcoin. Since if you invest in other coins, you will not get profit even after holding that investment for a long time, but rather the total capital will be exhausted, so why would people make those unnecessary investments? That is why altcoin/shitcoin/memecoin/forks investors lose interest.

[Mpamaegbu]

What happened differently  that there are no threats or signs of forking?

I wondered the same thing too a few days ago. I guess that fork era was a period of experiment for the Bitcoin community. Community thought it could solve issues of scalability and transaction speed by all that. Now is a more stable era for Bitcoin. I seriously doubt anyone would want to experiment on that now.

Well, a lot of Bitcoin hodlers made piles of money from that as they were airdropped those tokens. Those who criticized those forks also made money and we didn't hear of any who rejected what they were airdropped 😏. I missed out because I was still a noob who didn't understand much of what was going on then.

[shield132]

When you read old threads, you will hear of many soft forks and including a few hard forks that gave birth to Bitcoin Cash , Bitcoin gold, Bitcoin SV. The last one should be BSV in 2018.
What happened differently  that there are no threats or signs of forking?

Bitcoin XT was the first Bitcoin fork, created in 2014 in the history of Bitcoin but I didn't know about this fork for a long time. The first major and mainstream Bitcoin fork was Bitcoin Cash. You could claim BCH if you had Bitcoins in your wallet. When the BCH fork happened and the price of the coin was 1000$, people realised that by creating forks they would get easy money, so that's why so many forks happened in the old days. ICOs were also very popular back then. Today, these things aren't trendy, today, NFTs and Ordinals make you more money. Everything changes, trends come and go.

[WhoYouCantKill]

Earlier years, Bitcoin had some indifference on matters of scaling and direction, thereby leading to forks such as BCH, BSV, and BTG. With time, the platform grow stronger, and lots of people understood that the division of network reduced the rate of adoption and trust. Now, Bitcoin is having firm consensus, well structured communication medium, with a more obvious priority on stability and safety.

Therefore forks isn't really threatening not to say that there are no disagreements any more, but because the ecosystem now prefers unity to splitting.
More of the energy now is channeling to growing top of Bitcoin instead of tearing it apart.

[viljy]

I remember it was fun to get a new fork (of course, if the address has bitcoin). To do this, you had to have a wallet like Coinomi or Bitpie (formerly Bither) or install a full fork wallet (which was not convenient for everyone due to the large size of the blockchain). The forks were somewhat similar to Retrodrops, which appeared and became popular a few years after the forks.

In addition, you need to handle your wallet and private key carefully. People had to move their Bitcoin to different address/wallet (before claming forked coins) to prevent their Bitcoin accidentally stolen.

Yes, bitcoin should definitely be moved to another address and only then receive a fork to the previous, already empty address. You'll laugh, I used some kind of fork service with one of these addresses (I don't remember which one anymore), and since there were no bitcoins at the address, another fork was stolen from me, which I hadn't managed to pick up yet. Well, since then, I haven't trusted such services anymore. Then the hype with forks gradually faded away.

[HistoLock]

[...]

Yes many people agree this especially those who believe Bitcoin is only real and secure cryptocurrency. You are right that Bitcoin huge lead in hash rate which shows its security makes powerful case against Bitcoin Cash. These shitcoins are are just copies of Bitcoin without same level of trust and network support.
Market has always shown it prefers Bitcoin so it makes sense that any new copies would likely be sold off quickly as history has proven that just copying code is not enough to build same kind of security and trust as Bitcoin.

Of course you are right, there is a lot of logic in your words because I directly agree with the point you mentioned. Yes I believe that Bitcoin's huge hash rate makes a strong argument against security caches, but if we look at other currencies, then we can understand that Bitcoin is a secure cryptocurrency. Yes it is certainly true that Bitcoin is preferred over other coins, I think that sitcoins are just following Bitcoin. If sitcoins copy or imitate Bitcoin to gain trust, then even those who believe in Bitcoin will not be interested in investing in those coins other than Bitcoin.
Yes thank you very much for your valuable comments, I have been very clear about this issue from your post, thank you
 

[Boiboi20]

Like what we're having every season, those forks were also a trend and hype. Until everyone has seen and recognized that the developers were making it as a quick source of money, they were not tolerated by the community.

And so, the hype and trend from the forks have died and became forgotten because the proliferation of scams have also been there.

IIRC, we almost got a lot of those names fork after fork and almost named after Bitcoin and the universe.

Forks were once the big hype everybody jumped on them like they were the next big thing but people soon realized most of the developer were just in it for quick money add in the scams and the excitement completely died out back then it felt like every other week there was some new bitcoin something popping up but now most of them forgotten.
However back then forks were treated almost like a fashion trend every new one created wave of excitement but after a while people noticed that many of the developers behind them were not building for the long term they were just looking for a quick payday that made the community lose trust.

[₿itcoin]

When you read old threads, you will hear of many soft forks and including a few hard forks that gave birth to Bitcoin Cash , Bitcoin gold, Bitcoin SV. The last one should be BSV in 2018.
What happened differently  that there are no threats or signs of forking?

BCH, BTG BSV and other shit fork occurred because the community was not able to agree on the direction of the protocol, primarily over block size & fairness of mining but most failed due to a lack of support and liquidity. There are 100 forks shit, but 90% dead now

But now we no longer need drama, we have evolved to cooperate. We got the opportunity to upgrade (scaling, privacy & lightning support) without splitting the chains because of the soft forks like SegWit & Taproot. Therefore, it is the reason why threats of hard fork have not been witnessed in the recent past. In other words, the use of forks was that of a chaos-guided experiment, whereas now Bitcoin is advancing intelligently through consensus.

[chainganginc]

When you read old threads, you will hear of many soft forks and including a few hard forks that gave birth to Bitcoin Cash , Bitcoin gold, Bitcoin SV. The last one should be BSV in 2018.
What happened differently  that there are no threats or signs of forking?

BCH, BTG BSV and other shit fork occurred because the community was not able to agree on the direction of the protocol, primarily over block size & fairness of mining but most failed due to a lack of support and liquidity. There are 100 forks shit, but 90% dead now

But now we no longer need drama, we have evolved to cooperate. We got the opportunity to upgrade (scaling, privacy & lightning support) without splitting the chains because of the soft forks like SegWit & Taproot. Therefore, it is the reason why threats of hard fork have not been witnessed in the recent past. In other words, the use of forks was that of a chaos-guided experiment, whereas now Bitcoin is advancing intelligently through consensus.

What if Bitcoin cash was merge mined it might have been better.   Ive been trying to think of a idea that can really help. Like a merge mined fork called "Bitbill" the name may change but I like it. Could help miners with electric bills and late comers. The block size may have to be raised 64MB sounds crazy. But I would like the TPS to be more than Bitcoin Cash. I think support is most important but liquidity will come with a great protocol. The branding and marketing can push it into being adopted.

[chainganginc]

You can look at it as not being an altcoin but a bill instead. A fork that's a sidechain designed to run beside Bitcoin.  I read the Bitcoin whitepaper and it says electronic Cash at the top then he says electronic coins later in the paper. The project has been super successful but it's called bit coins not bit cash. Also you don't mind coins you mine for deposits of gold. Satoshi tried but he needed help to iron these things out. Like the wallet could have been more of a tool marketed as a digger not mining.

People dig for coins like treasure to get rewarded.  Wish I could have been there to help Satoshi make it better. Is it electronic cash or coins? I say coins and the TPS is too little. I guess that's why the fork came and even with that it's still not fast enough. Even though Bitcoin is working it has its issues. Need more of a Republic because that democracy shit ain't gonna work. If it didn't there would be no wrapped, lightning network or strike. I don't know if Satoshi would like all this extra stuff. 

How can you get all this global institution money in without the central threat. You see all these billionaires now buying it up pushing the price higher. You wonder why you Coinbase won't use BNB. I read one guy say that they could roll the chain back. Bitcoin is not allocated enough because stupid people that had extra money were slow to adapt. So much money going around why would they care about Bitcoin. Total control and manipulation. Need to look at the people behind these forks.  They are more capitalists than libertarians. Satoshi was fighting for liberty with this technology. If a group in this forum could cooperate on a fork it could work. Who has a better idea? Because Bitcoin is getting way out of reach for the average person.

[LordDj]

What happened differently  that there are no threats or signs of forking?

It seems like you're discussing a specific project or situation where forking or threats might have been expected but didn't occur. Without more context, it's challenging to provide a precise answer.There are some generally factors that might contribute to a situation where threats or signs of forking are absent:

Strong Project Leadership: Effectively leadership can guidelines the project in a direction that satisfies the majority of its contributors and stakeholders, reducing the likelihood of forks.

Inclusive Decision-Making: Involving contributors and stakeholders in the decision-making processing can foster a sense of ownership and reduce dissatisfaction that might lead to forking.

Community Engagement: A strong, engaged community that feels valued and heard is less likely to fracture or fork the project.

[₿itcoin]

BCH, BTG BSV and other shit fork occurred because the community was not able to agree on the direction of the protocol, primarily over block size & fairness of mining but most failed due to a lack of support and liquidity. There are 100 forks shit, but 90% dead now

But now we no longer need drama, we have evolved to cooperate. We got the opportunity to upgrade (scaling, privacy & lightning support) without splitting the chains because of the soft forks like SegWit & Taproot. Therefore, it is the reason why threats of hard fork have not been witnessed in the recent past. In other words, the use of forks was that of a chaos-guided experiment, whereas now Bitcoin is advancing intelligently through consensus.

What if Bitcoin cash was merge mined it might have been better.   Ive been trying to think of a idea that can really help. Like a merge mined fork called "Bitbill" the name may change but I like it. Could help miners with electric bills and late comers. The block size may have to be raised 64MB sounds crazy. But I would like the TPS to be more than Bitcoin Cash. I think support is most important but liquidity will come with a great protocol. The branding and marketing can push it into being adopted.

merge mining Bitbill to Bitcoin is not particularly new. Merged mining is putting one rig to work on two chains simultaneously & it is a real thing. This was done by Bitcoin & Namecoin shitcoin a long time ago and it is a 0 extra power cost action to provide increased security to smaller chains. The problem is that the altchain shitchain has to be supported with AuxPoW & dev skills to connect it appropriately as it is not just plug n play. Increasing blocksize to 64MB is just lol ridiculous & it would actually decimate decentralization also bring back the scaling nightmare that we have just left behind. so stay with Bitcoin compatible upgrades like Lightning, no need shit fork

[ABCbits]

Forking the Bitcoin network is a tried and tested attempt to create a coin to rival
Bitcoin which has proven to be futile. All previous forked coin performances and
acceptance has shown the trust lies with the project with the 100% security performance.

Forking the Bitcoin network now would be seen as a folly!

It was not an attempt to create a rival coin but to scam people who don't know better. Don't confuse competition with malice.

Don't you think scam is a bit harsh. Like there wasn't an attempt to steal anyone's money or extort money from anyone. Last I check, almost wallets that were holding Bitcoin were eligible for equivalent amount of fork coins like Bitcoin cash and Bsv.

You may forget it, but there was time when BCH community and some BCH website (primarily bitcoin.com) intentionally confuse people between BTC and BCH. I remember people bought BCH and assume they bought BTC.

As for BSV, it's already very shady from beginning since the fork led by CSW. He's one of faketoshi who send terror to some BTC and BCH developer/supporter and took many years before COPA eventually bring this matter to UK court law.

--snip--

What if Bitcoin cash was merge mined it might have been better.   Ive been trying to think of a idea that can really help. Like a merge mined fork called "Bitbill" the name may change but I like it. Could help miners with electric bills and late comers. The block size may have to be raised 64MB sounds crazy. But I would like the TPS to be more than Bitcoin Cash. I think support is most important but liquidity will come with a great protocol. The branding and marketing can push it into being adopted.

Considering BCH community decided to split from BTC network through hard fork, updating it's protocol to support merge mining with BTC sounds like admitting defeat. So it's very unlikely it'll happen.

[Catenaccio]

After Bcash, most people realized these forks were all just scams and nobody wanted to hold them. Each new fork had diminishing returns and eventually there wasn’t enough of an incentive to create more of them. It was more profitable to launch a new coin on Ethereum. As long as you pretended to have some kind of novel product attached to your token, you could raise millions of dollars in an ICO.

Bcash is a classic Bitcoin fork scam ever in history while there are hundreds of Bitcoin forks (altcoins) as scam.

There has been 667 forks from bitcoin (altcoins), 3 this month.
How Many Bitcoin Forks Are There? You will be surprised!!!

Bitcoin Cash can be considered as a most successful Bitcoin fork but it is scam as all other forks.

This is how the BCash scam team did.
Has Bitcoin.com stopped presenting Bitcoin Cash as the real Bitcoin?
To newcomers: make sure when you buy bitcoin you are buying bitcoin!

An archive of that scam site.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190428084027/https://wallet.bitcoin.com/

[Abiky]

Forking the Bitcoin network is a tried and tested attempt to create a coin to rival
Bitcoin which has proven to be futile. All previous forked coin performances and
acceptance has shown the trust lies with the project with the 100% security performance.

Forking the Bitcoin network now would be seen as a folly!

Or more like an attempt to get "free money". Developers and whales benefitted massively from forks. It was like a "double-spend", but with coins on different blockchain networks. Some exchanges didn't list all of the forks (especially the low-valued ones), marking the end of craze.

Right now, Bitcoin Cash is the only fork that's still afloat. But if it doesn't innovate, it's going to be left behind in the dust. The competition is fierce with many smart contract platforms gaining traction. There are rumors there's going to be a BCH spot ETF, but I doubt institutional investors are going to show interest in it. I'm certain Bitcoin will outlive most of the "shitcoins". Just you wait and see.

[chainganginc]

 

BCH, BTG BSV and other shit fork occurred because the community was not able to agree on the direction of the protocol, primarily over block size & fairness of mining but most failed due to a lack of support and liquidity. There are 100 forks shit, but 90% dead now

But now we no longer need drama, we have evolved to cooperate. We got the opportunity to upgrade (scaling, privacy & lightning support) without splitting the chains because of the soft forks like SegWit & Taproot. Therefore, it is the reason why threats of hard fork have not been witnessed in the recent past. In other words, the use of forks was that of a chaos-guided experiment, whereas now Bitcoin is advancing intelligently through consensus.

What if Bitcoin cash was merge mined it might have been better.   Ive been trying to think of a idea that can really help. Like a merge mined fork called "Bitbill" the name may change but I like it. Could help miners with electric bills and late comers. The block size may have to be raised 64MB sounds crazy. But I would like the TPS to be more than Bitcoin Cash. I think support is most important but liquidity will come with a great protocol. The branding and marketing can push it into being adopted.

merge mining Bitbill to Bitcoin is not particularly new. Merged mining is putting one rig to work on two chains simultaneously & it is a real thing. This was done by Bitcoin & Namecoin shitcoin a long time ago and it is a 0 extra power cost action to provide increased security to smaller chains. The problem is that the altchain shitchain has to be supported with AuxPoW & dev skills to connect it appropriately as it is not just plug n play. Increasing blocksize to 64MB is just lol ridiculous & it would actually decimate decentralization also bring back the scaling nightmare that we have just left behind. so stay with Bitcoin compatible upgrades like Lightning, no need shit fork

I see so sad i.was not there earlier too many bad coins. I tried to launch a few good ideas but liquidity is lacking. On top of that no use case even though they had different attributes.  Hard to not be come cross as bullshit because you can have all the bells and whistles. Still be a shitcoin hmmm I will keep trying something .

What do you think of these specs?

Block reward: 5 maybe keep at 50 for 210m
Halving: 2,100,000 blocks
Block Time: 60 seconds (1 min)
Retarget: 202 blocks
Block Size: 10MB
Max Supply: 21m
Merge mine


Bitbill

Created to help miners with electric costs and other amenities. Can help create a fast sidechain of value so BTC miners can store their BTC. Use Bitbill and save your BTC to help the value grow to 1 million.  Instead of taking miners away from the original chain Bitbill can help strengthen the security.  

Will need a tutorial for miners to hook up AuxPoW.
My argument is that miners will drop out because the profit margin and the reward will continue to drop. With Bitbill the block time is 10 times shorter so it gives miners more chances to get rewards. It's not a coin like the others claim to be it's a bill like electronic cash. Not mining for coins instead your computer is working for bills.

The scaling was helped with segwit and Taproot but still could use some energy to get to 1 million. If Bitcoin is digital gold then Bitbill is digital cash that is deflationary.

More like a job a wage instead of a reward every 4 years the WAGE decreases with halving but the value should rise. It's like jobs right but the opposite jobs wage go up but the value decreases because of inflation. Nothing new like you said it's just the branding is better Bitcoin is a great technology and brand.  Instead of claiming to be the better version of Bitcoin it's claiming to be the better assistant to the BOSS.

Wish I had 10000 Bitcoin to fund this project I might lose 9000. Id sacrifice it to help get Bitcoin to 1 million. So that 1000 would turn into 1 Billion. You see I would make others richer and still have enough to get it jumping worldwide. Bitcoin grocery store, clothing store, gas station,  restaurants crazy shit like that to promote. Sigh