FAQ: Bitcoin hard-fork 2026 "Blake2b"

[Greg Tonoski]

I'm sharing the 'FAQ: Bitcoin hard-fork 2026 "Blake2b"' that I've created for my family (https://gregtonoski.github.io/bitcoin/FAQ_-Bitcoin_hard-fork_2026-Blake2b.pdf):

• Will I need to update node software on my machine to continue connection with the Bitcoin network?
  Yes. The current versions of node software (e.g. v29.4 of Bitcoin Knots) are not compatible with the updated protocol so node software update will be required for Bitcoin nodes.
  
  
• How will I know if my node software requires the update?
  By checking your node software version, e.g. execute the command: “./bitcoind --version”. Version numbers 29.4 and lower will be obsolete and the future update will be needed. Also the so-called “Bitcoin Core” is obsolete. The new version will be at bitcoinknots.org.
  
  
• What is the difference between Bitcoin pre- and post- the hard-fork Blake2b? Why is the update needed?
  The update is needed to improve security of Bitcoin and respond to the disruption caused by the coordinated attack (“98% attack” to indicate the share of the SHA-256d hashpower held by the attacker) carried out by SHA-256d oligarchs since the 8th of August 2026. At the date, SHA-256d oligarchs realized the threat of hampering the Bitcoin chain growth-rate. As a result it dropped from a block per 10 minutes to a block per 2 days (288 times slower). At the same time, the SHA-256d oligarchs launched their own copycat coin (so-called “SHA-256d-coin” or “bPedo” or “Bithereum”), faked the element of decentralization (by naming it “Bitcoin”), introduced an element of trust and central management of their SHA-256d coin.
  
  Beforehand, the same SHA-256d oligarchs had facilitated spam attacks, exploitation of known vulnerabilities, abused nodes for file store, sponsored troll farms and influencers, run smear campaigns against Bitcoiners to subvert their mission and culture, put the network in jeopardy by unblocking possibility to distribute CSAM instead of protecting the network against variety of threats, neglected cooperation to suspend transfers (i.e. mining certain transactions) of funds stolen/drained from ColdCard wallet victims (a week before the 98% attack, i.e. 30 June 2026).
  
  There will be hash-power more evenly distributed among independent sources, chain growth-rate will return to the average of a block per 10 minutes and the imminent threats of further disruptions from the SHA-256d hash-power domination attack vector will be avoided after the hard-fork Blake2b.
  
  
• Why not adjusting the difficulty instead of updating PoW algo?
  Bad actors still control 98% of SHA-256d hashpower and could manipulate difficulty back higher. At the same time, they could substitute spam for transactions in blocks they mined, effectively blocking throughput of transactions in the network. Also, they could block competition from independent miners by replacing others’ blocks of transactions (chain reorganization).
  
  
• Will I have a realistic chance to mine a block on my PC like Hal Finney did?
  Rather not. Personal computers are orders of magnitude less efficient at “mining” in comparison to a specific type of equipment (ASIC).
  
  
• Why is it insecure to send SHA-256d coins?
  Sending SHA-256d coins may result in loss of bitcoins. For example, somebody sends SHA-256d coins to an address of exchange on the SHA-256d chain in order to sell them. The transaction details are shared publicly. An attacker could copy them and retransmit them to the Bitcoin thus causing unauthorized transfer of bitcoins (on the Bitcoin chain) to an exchange (“replay attack”). It stems from the fact that both SHA-256d-coin and Bitcoin share the same unlocking mechanisms. There will be a new mechanism (“sighash”) unique to Bitcoin added as part of the hard-fork Blake2b.
  
  
• Will crypto-exchanges like e.g. Coinbase credit my account and allow withdrawals of both SHA-256d-coin and bitcoins?
  Possible although they haven’t made any statement about it yet (as far as I know).
  
  
• Why should SHA-256d coin not be called Bitcoin?
  Because Bitcoin is a decentralised system in contrast to SHA-256d coin which is a centrally managed one.
  
  
• Why did you choose Bitcoin and not SHA-256d-coin or Bithereum?
  Because I need sound money.
  

Visualization of the current status of the Bitcoin chain-tip (as shown at mempool.guide):

[NotFuzzyWarm]

BTC is NOT forking! Luke is doing all of this on his own and created a different coin - an ALTCOIN. Yes it was created as a fork from BTC but that is the route he chose to make his new coin. Where he really went off the rails is his insistence that his version is the 'one true' Bitcoin despite the fact that his version was ignored by 98% of all miners Discussion of it belongs in the altcoin areas, not here in the BTC areas....

The existing BTC chain is running just fine. Crazy Luke's chain where all of the grief that he alone created is the one with issues.

Edit: per request mods moved thread to alt area.

[dkbit98]

Here we go again...  
I thought we are going to have only one fork with ecash this year, bu it looks like we could have another one with this Blake2b.
I certainly won't be supporting any of this ''better'' altcoins myself.

[athanred]

Is any BIP-110 supporter ready to sell non-BIP-110 coins for BIP-110 ones? It is hard to find anyone, who is willing to trade, which creates a feeling, that BIP-110 users don't believe in their coins. Otherwise, they would buy them like crazy.

[OgNasty]

I always find it interesting when open source projects fork and then only one project can claim they are the real one.  It almost seems like it goes against everything that open source projects stand for.  I get why it happens, I just don't think it is the most efficient or productive way to do things.  This is how projects get captured and stay in power through censorship.  I don't understand why this forum doesn't foster discussion about Bitcoin forks and then let them fail on their ideas instead of via censorship.  If only satoshi was still around...  He'd probably be helping the fork team, not discouraging them.  The fear with which Bitcoin developers seem to operate is concerning.

[d5000]

I don't understand why this forum doesn't foster discussion about Bitcoin forks and then let them fail on their ideas instead of via censorship.

This fork idea was discussed over a year, mostly in the Bitcoin Discussion area. It even got an official BIP number, despite being of questionable quality (e.g. due to confiscation risks which weren't fully addressed). Nevertheless, the project did fail to achieve to get miners and economic nodes on board, so only 2% supported it. They simply lost the soft fork race even if they set the threshold the lowest possible (55%).

With better communication, a higher quality code and the 90%+ majority they could have had a chance to introduce some kind of anti-spam mechanism. But not the way they did it, insulting everybody who didn't agree with them.

Bitcoin is the coin which has the "longest chain" without any manipulation, and a hard forking algorithm change is such a manipulation. So this thread is completely okay in the Altcoin forum. Or should we discuss Bcash, BSV, Ecash, BTG and the other 100+ forks in the Bitcoin Discussion? I think until the idea is to make the new rules part of Bitcoin, then possible "soft" forks should indeed be discussed in the Bitcoin section. But this opportunity is gone now, as they chose to create an altcoin ...

[athanred]

He'd probably be helping the fork team, not discouraging them.

First of all, the "forking team" received technical feedback, which could help them avoid forking the chain at all. They explicitly ignored all of the warnings, and created a code, which was designed to fork anyway.

There is a reason, why soft-forks have "failed" status, and why they can expire. There is also a reason, why 90% hashrate support is needed, and not 55%, or 51%. There are many things they could do better, if they would listen to all concerns raised in discussions about their BIP. But well, they ignored it, they thought they know better, so now they have to face the consequences. Your node, your choice.

By the way: there are people, working on solutions, where no forks would be needed, and some data could be discarded from a node: https://sambitcoin.github.io/BitcoinMonetaryNode/

So, if at that point, someone thinks, that forking, and enforcing new rules on everyone is the only way, then it is just technically wrong. Also, things like pruning exist for decades; if their goal would be related to really discarding some data, then they would improve pruning, instead of trying to force their view on every single node.

The fear with which Bitcoin developers seem to operate is concerning.

Where can you see that fear? So far, many people wanted to sell their BIP-110 coins, but there are no buyers. So, who is scared in that case?

BIP-110 is the best soft-fork in the Bitcoin history.

See? They tell us, that their coin is the best. And they still don't want to buy it. Are they scared, that it is not the case?

[pooya87]

The amount of time and effort these altcoin creators put into trying to create a copycoin out of bitcoin should have been spent elsewhere. Like for example in this case instead of creating Lukecoin like this with a BIP and on top of bitcoin's chain, they could have created a brand new altcoin from scratch (from block #0) and introduced that to the world.

The fact that they still insist of continuing down this path to create Lukecoin by using bitcoin's gigantic chain history shows all they care about is to make some money and they have no faith in their abilities to create a good altcoin from scratch.
The title of this topic (referring to Lukecoin as a "bitcoin hard fork") says it all. By abusing the Bitcoin "brand" they want to sell their shitcoin and make some money themselves.

[ABCbits]

There are so many obvious wrong or misleading information, that even free ChatGPT can easily spot it.

• Not an established Bitcoin-wide upgrade: A Blake2b change would likely create a separate forkcoin unless Bitcoin’s broader ecosystem adopts it. Calling it “the Bitcoin hard fork” is misleading.
• “98% attack” is unsupported: 98% hash power on the main SHA-256d chain does not itself prove an attack. It may simply mean most miners rejected the proposed fork.
• The slowdown applies to the minority chain: The “one block every two days” claim should not imply that Bitcoin’s main chain slowed that much.
• No guarantee of decentralization: Blake2b may change mining hardware requirements, but it cannot guarantee evenly distributed hash power or a ten-minute block interval.
• Difficulty cannot simply be chosen by miners: Miners influence difficulty indirectly through hash power and block production; they do not freely set the consensus difficulty.
• Replay protection explanation is wrong: sighash is not new, and sighash flags are not automatically replay protection. The fork needs an explicit chain-specific transaction or signature rule.
• Replay attacks are conditional: Transactions might be replayed on both chains if both accept them, but this is not automatic in every case.
• “SHA-256d coins” is ambiguous: Name the specific chain, such as “Bitcoin” and “the proposed BIP-110/Blake2b forkcoin.”
• Exchange support is unknown: Users should not assume Coinbase or other exchanges will credit, trade, or allow withdrawals of the forkcoin.
• “Bitcoin Core is obsolete” is false: Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Knots are separate implementations. Core may simply follow different consensus rules.
• Version numbers are not a universal cutoff: Saying “29.4 and lower will be obsolete” is unjustified without identifying the exact software release and activation rules.
• The command example is installation-dependent: ./bitcoind --version works only from a particular directory; bitcoind --version or bitcoin-cli getnetworkinfo is more generally useful.
• Hal Finney’s mining experience is not comparable: He mined when Bitcoin’s difficulty was extremely low. Modern Bitcoin mining requires specialized ASIC hardware.
• Political accusations need evidence or removal: Terms such as “oligarchs,” “troll farms,” “smear campaigns,” and “faked decentralization” are allegations, not technical facts.
• Decentralization is oversimplified: A mining-algorithm change alone does not prove that one chain is decentralized and the other centrally managed.

The detail given by ChatGPT isn't accurate, but still better than what OP write.

I don't understand why this forum doesn't foster discussion about Bitcoin forks and then let them fail on their ideas instead of via censorship.

This fork idea was discussed over a year, mostly in the Bitcoin Discussion area.

Not only that, moderator is being lenient even when duplicate or near-duplicate thread created so many times. One of them even include NSFW/disturbing content without any warning. Proof and explanation at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5565808.msg66845077#msg66845077.

[Dark.Look]

How will I know if my node software requires the update?

It is not greg who can tell you that infact your own faq has the direction wrong. A hard fork cannot be applied to a node. If a node is still in v29.4 it continues to validate the same chain that it already has, because it doesn't accept blocks that violate the rules it was built with. The opt-out is just to do nothing.
So, as far as your question goes i think nobody wants to update to remain in place. They want him to go away. The same applies for the line that says that Core is dead. A node is not halted due to another project stopping its agreement.

If somebody desires to look at which chain they are on after a split, the version number is of no use. Just check the getbestblockhash comparson with an explorer for both sides. It's only 10 second and that's what that faq doesn't answer.

[OgNasty]

I don't understand why this forum doesn't foster discussion about Bitcoin forks and then let them fail on their ideas instead of via censorship.

This fork idea was discussed over a year, mostly in the Bitcoin Discussion area. It even got an official BIP number, despite being of questionable quality (e.g. due to confiscation risks which weren't fully addressed). Nevertheless, the project did fail to achieve to get miners and economic nodes on board, so only 2% supported it. They simply lost the soft fork race even if they set the threshold the lowest possible (55%).

With better communication, a higher quality code and the 90%+ majority they could have had a chance to introduce some kind of anti-spam mechanism. But not the way they did it, insulting everybody who didn't agree with them.

Bitcoin is the coin which has the "longest chain" without any manipulation, and a hard forking algorithm change is such a manipulation. So this thread is completely okay in the Altcoin forum. Or should we discuss Bcash, BSV, Ecash, BTG and the other 100+ forks in the Bitcoin Discussion? I think until the idea is to make the new rules part of Bitcoin, then possible "soft" forks should indeed be discussed in the Bitcoin section. But this opportunity is gone now, as they chose to create an altcoin ...

I agree about the longest chain being Bitcoin and also that discussion of hundreds of forks here is unsustainable for the community. I guess my problem is that while a Bitcoin fork might not be “Bitcoin” by definition, it is still much more “Bitcoin” than an altcoin. Perhaps a forks section would be a better solution. As a Bitcoiner though, dividends I receive from Bitcoin in the form of forks is related to Bitcoin in my opinion and deserves special attention here above an altcoin. We shouldn’t fear forks. We should appreciate them.

[MoparMiningLLC]

more fud from Mechanic....

Bitcoin is not forking - the BIP110 altcoin is forking and changing their algo. Why they keep insisting on calling their fork "Bitcoin" is on Craig Wright level - his fork was not even a fork of Bitcoin itself but a fork of Bitcoin Cash.

[athanred]

I guess my problem is that while a Bitcoin fork might not be “Bitcoin” by definition, it is still much more “Bitcoin” than an altcoin.

Then, how would you classify testnets? Now, all of them are traded for BTCs, except regtest:

https://altquick.com/exchange/market/BitcoinTestnet3
https://altquick.com/exchange/market/BitcoinTestnet4
https://altquick.com/exchange/market/BitcoinSignet

So, if some network has almost the same rules as mainnet, is it really an altcoin, or just a fork? Do you consider an altcoin a chain, which is literally part of Bitcoin Core, and is as close to the mainnet, as it can be?

Also, if testnets will be built on top of mainnet, what then? Currently, we have ecash alpha testnet, which is built in that way: https://explorer.alpha.ecash.ninja/

We shouldn’t fear forks. We should appreciate them.

Paul Sztorc once said, that we should do hard-forks every day. Do you agree? I guess the copy-cat strategy will win, because of game theory: https://ncase.me/trust/

Also, related topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5591891

Why they keep insisting on calling their fork "Bitcoin"

Because it is mentally easier to play that game, instead of admitting, that the strongest chain is somewhere else, and properly tracing the global difficulty. Even the whitepaper can give you the exact conditions to have a secure system:

The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes.

See? There are no assumptions, like "it can work safely as a minority chain", or "if the network is attacked, then you change your Proof of Work, and you are good to go". Nothing like that at all. The code was written in a way, that it works only, if it is supported by the hashrate majority. If it stops being the case, then it stops being secure. And then, you need a completely new set of assumptions, to maintain the same properties.

Practice shows us, that many altcoins are fine, even if they are in a minority. But it is only related to the lack of incentive to attack them. If their value will grow to the levels, where attacking would be profitable, then they would be attacked. This is clearly seen in testnet4, where minimal difficulty blocks are abused, to produce more coins than scheduled, because there is an incentive to do so, and because raising the difficulty above certain levels causes honest nodes to automatically join the attack, if they don't modify their mining code, which is why it is hard to bring back the old difficulty, once it is broken.

[d5000]

I guess my problem is that while a Bitcoin fork might not be “Bitcoin” by definition, it is still much more “Bitcoin” than an altcoin. Perhaps a forks section would be a better solution.

I would not be against that, but I would place this section inside the Altcoin section, because the "currency" is not worth the same - 1 BTC is much more than 1 BCH or 1 BitcoinPurity or whatever.

We shouldn’t fear forks. We should appreciate them.

In my opinion, forks are neutral. They are always possible and the design of Bitcoin (or of any blockchain) afaik takes this possibility into account from the start.

However, there is a catch. The Bitcoin ecosystem could become unstable if forking becomes more than just a phenomenon of small groups, i.e. if we see either really a strong fork, or constant forking activity which gets a lot of attention. This could happen if there is a lack of clarity that these forks are not Bitcoin.

The problem is that groups that want a rule change in Bitcoin, could feel they could just hardfork (just like the BIP-110 folks seem to do), instead of working on and improving their proposal until they get it into a state where the nodes and miners of Bitcoin would accept it, and so the updated protocol could become the "longest chain".

The softfork mechanism, where you have to get the miners on board, ensures that only quality changes that are really thoroughly reviewed and thought about, really make it into the Bitcoin protocol.

Thus we should be really clear about only the longest chain being Bitcoin. Its an incentive/game theory issue which could otherwise spiral out of control.

[athanred]

instead of working on and improving their proposal until they get it into a state where the nodes and miners of Bitcoin would accept it, and so the updated protocol could become the "longest chain"

In this specific case, they want to "remove a feature", which means "processing less data than today". And that can be handled without any forks, just by processing a subset of the existing network.

I guess only their ego stops them from implementing it in that way. Because technically, they can, just they instead prefer forcing their rules on others, for no reason. If you want a new feature, then it is quite natural, that you want to see it globally supported. But if you want to remove a feature, then you can just skip it, right?

Pruned nodes already store only the last 288 blocks or so. Everything else is discarded. If they would really care about processing only payments, then they would focus on monetary nodes instead, and would try to improve Initial Blockchain Download, to simply not need non-monetary data at all. Also, nodes like utreexo already work in a different way, so that they don't need as much data.

Existing spammers put their data on-chain, because they assume, that every byte they sent, will be stored forever. Break that assumption, and you will solve the spamming problem. Then, if each user will have to store its own transactions, just like each user have to store all private keys, then there will be no incentive to spam, if you could lose coins, by not storing your own data.

The Bitcoin ecosystem could become unstable if forking becomes more than just a phenomenon of small groups, i.e. if we see either really a strong fork, or constant forking activity which gets a lot of attention.

Which is why Merged Mining can solve that kind of problems. And instead, we have ECX by Paul Sztorc, where he tries to encourage other people to use Merged Mining, while also not using it to launch its own fork. Which only gives an impression, that there is a catch, instead of promoting that feature. "Merged Mining is great, you should use it, but I won't touch it, without explaining you why". It just sounds fishy. Also because Merged Mining works best, when it is connected to the strongest chain in the world, because then it could provide the best resistance to 51% attacks.

[d5000]

In this specific case, they want to "remove a feature", which means "processing less data than today". And that can be handled without any forks, just by processing a subset of the existing network.

My impression is that the BIP 110 is more directed at reducing incentives to add data to the blockchain. Otherwise they could simply continue with their filter policy. In fact anybody can do that even with Bitcoin Core.

But for this goal, there were some other alternatives on the table than to cripple Bitcoin Script like BIP-110 does. I have discussed with one of the BIP-110 supporters for example that one could think about a mandatory dust limit (for all outputs minus one). They also could have seeked a kind of middle ground, e.g. increasing OP_RETURN limit to e.g. 256 bytes (now, it would be a decrease actually) to catch most use cases outside of NFTs (e.g. sidechains), and instead apply some kind of stricter limit to Taproot too. I think there could have been a chance of such a proposal to be accepted by the miners.

The thing is however, all they can do is make data more expensive (losing the witness discount, make not every byte usable ...), they cannot prevent arbitrary storage due to so many methods being possible, with the "fake private key" method being the most "unstoppable". But the Ordinals/runes fad led to people not care at all about fees. They sometimes paid 1000 sat/vByte or more ... so it would be totally ineffective.

Another idea would be to make OP_RETURN even less mandatory to be processed for nodes, like a protocol change where normally only a hash of that data is stored, and the rest must be provided by dedicated archival nodes. Of course the hash method is already possible with workarounds. But Citrea et al. would then have to return to the fake public key method or even the fake private key method. As most readers here will know these methods clutter the UTXO set, and that's why OP_RETURN is always preferred.

Existing spammers put their data on-chain, because they assume, that every byte they sent, will be stored forever. Break that assumption, and you will solve the spamming problem. Then, if each user will have to store its own transactions, just like each user have to store all private keys, then there will be no incentive to spam, if you could lose coins, by not storing your own data.

How could this be achieved? I mean Utreexo exists, but once the data is on the blockchain, it will be still be stored by full nodes, only the UTXO set will be smaller.

All they could do is to make pruned nodes more popular, but miners will still store the whole chain probably to have rapid access to all UTXOs. And thus spammers will have cheap (or free) sources for their data.

Which is why Merged Mining can solve that kind of problems.

It would solve the problem of the security of different chains and would indeed be good for miners, but not the issue of different competing currencies. If we want Bitcoin to be something more than some speculative pennystock-like token, then there must be a clear leadership of the token/coin called "Bitcoin".

[pooya87]

I guess my problem is that while a Bitcoin fork might not be “Bitcoin” by definition, it is still much more “Bitcoin” than an altcoin. Perhaps a forks section would be a better solution.

I disagree. Forkcoins are temporary hype. They aren't actively creating new forkshitcoins every day or even every year. Last time we had a wave of forkcoins was back in 2017-2018 so it is almost a decade ago and nothing was going on in between. Such a board would be empty and it may even encourage shitcoin creation with this approach.

I also wouldn't call them "more bitcoin than an altcoin". If anything they are "more shitcoin than an altcoin". That's because they are copying the entire bitcoin blockchain to create their altcoin. Not to mention copying the bitcoin code. This may not be obvious but copying bitcoin code is the worst thing anybody can do when creating a new altcoin. They'll import all the bad decisions made by Satoshi as well as "flaws" in the code (eg. sigop count bug, the CheckMultiSig dummy item pop, etc.).

If you want to create an altcoin, the result would be a million times cleaner if you do it from scratch. For starters your brand new altcoin wouldn't have an almost 800 GB blockchain and an enormous chainstate!

[Charleslie]

I disagree. Forkcoins are temporary hype. They aren't actively creating new forkshitcoins every day or even every year. Last time we had a wave of forkcoins was back in 2017-2018 so it is almost a decade ago and nothing was going on in between. Such a board would be empty and it may even encourage shitcoin creation with this approach.

I also wouldn't call them "more bitcoin than an altcoin". If anything they are "more shitcoin than an altcoin". That's because they are copying the entire bitcoin blockchain to create their altcoin. Not to mention copying the bitcoin code. This may not be obvious but copying bitcoin code is the worst thing anybody can do when creating a new altcoin. They'll import all the bad decisions made by Satoshi as well as "flaws" in the code (eg. sigop count bug, the CheckMultiSig dummy item pop, etc.).

If you want to create an altcoin, the result would be a million times cleaner if you do it from scratch. For starters your brand new altcoin wouldn't have an almost 800 GB blockchain and an enormous chainstate!

I get your point, especially about the temporary nature of forkcoin hype. I also agree that calling them “more bitcoin than an altcoin” is probably giving them too much credit. They’re still fundamentally altcoins, and copying Bitcoin’s chain and code doesn’t automatically make them closer to Bitcoin in any way.The point about inheriting old design decisions and quirks is interesting too, If someone is serious about creating a new coin, starting with a clean implementation can make a lot more.

[athanred]

For starters your brand new altcoin wouldn't have an almost 800 GB blockchain and an enormous chainstate!

This is funny, because all hard-forks could just use SPV-like model, to store all historical data. When their consensus rules say, for example, that "the chain starts from the block 961,632", then instead of having a typical Genesis Block, they could for example set it to "00000000000000000000807f9dc917442a67910426d79ebb2f8aa2149327ce8a", and store only block headers for all historical blocks. In this way, they wouldn't have to store 800 GB of data from the start, but only some fraction of it, related to the UTXO set, and whatever their users will want to claim. Everything else could be safely discarded, because reorging their chain beyond the point of forking, would overwrite their entire history, so they have no reason to start from block "zero", other than marketing their chain as "created in 2009", which many people disagree with anyway, even if they support their chain. Also, from practical usage, it doesn't matter, if the chain was created in 2009, if you cannot use the client from that time to handle it anyway.

They'll import all the bad decisions made by Satoshi as well as "flaws" in the code (eg. sigop count bug, the CheckMultiSig dummy item pop, etc.).

Which is why hard-forks should be planned well in advance, to use that one-time opportunity of hard-forking, to fix multiple things at once. There is a reason, why people create pages like Hardfork Wishlist. Satoshi knew, that once a system is released, it is hard to change it. Which is why he made a prenet, where blocks with 20 leading zero bits could be made, and why he spent months, or even years on thinking it through, to make sure, that the system is good enough, to handle upgrades properly.

And now, they do the opposite thing, by trying to make just minimal changes to the block headers, and launch everything in September. Which again gives altcoin vibes, where developers can change rules instantly, and all users have to follow them. If you have a coin with small market cap, then you can ask two or three peers, and change everything. If you have a coin worth trillions of dollars, then you have to carefully plan every step, to not break it, to reach consensus properly, and to make sure, that your changes are supported.

[Danish Ali]

​

I disagree. Forkcoins are temporary hype. They aren't actively creating new forkshitcoins every day or even every year.

I would say they ought to be properly categorized, just because they are not created every other minute. There are lots of board sections to provide not simply for the "what is trending today" purpose. If we only left sections for things that are currently going on, it would have to reorganize half the forum.

​

I also wouldn't call them "more bitcoin than an altcoin". If anything they are "more shitcoin than an altcoin". That's because they are copying the entire bitcoin blockchain to create their altcoin.

I do not think you have in mind that ‘copied code’ is the same category as any random altcoin. While copying the codebase certainly gives us a technical answer to where it came from, how something is categorized is also a question of aim (and identity) as well as origin. While Dogecoin and Litecoin borrowed heavily from Bitcoin's original code base, BCH and BSV are being marketed as direct successors/derivatives of ‘Bitcoin', copying the actual chain history itself.
If “copied code = shitcoin” was the true rule, then early Bitcoin-derived coins would be in that same bucket.

​

If you want to create an altcoin, the result would be a million times cleaner if you do it from scratch. For starters your brand new altcoin wouldn't have an almost 800 GB blockchain and an enormous chainstate!

While technically that is correct, design efficiency is not the same thing as how a coin should be classified. There is a distinction between quality of design and classification. A poorly designed fork is still an altcoin with shared history, not necessarily "worse than a random altcoin."
A fork is not actually “pure Bitcoin” at the end of the day, however neither is it correct to push it into the group of random altcoins since a fork's history and marketing are unique. If it doesnt have much activity during certain times, it doesnt mean it shouldnt exist in a reference/historical forum.