FAQ: Bitcoin hard-fork 2026 "Blake2b"

[pooya87]

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.

UTXO set is still too big itself. According to statoshi.info it is 11.4 GB with 165 million UTXOs.

If “copied code = shitcoin” was the true rule, then early Bitcoin-derived coins would be in that same bucket.

That's why Dogecoin is a shitcoin as well
But I agree that objective is important too. They didn't create bcash, bcashsv or lukecoin to innovate or solve any problem. They created these shit-fork-coins to make some noise and by using bitcoin's "brand" fill their own pockets. That uselessness and their objective makes their product a shitcoin.

[athanred]

UTXO set is still too big itself.

Of course, but even in that case, they don't have to store it entirely from the start. For example: if they have the block headers, then users can gradually import needed parts of the UTXO set, while leaving everything else unused. There is a command called "importprunedfunds". It allows pruned nodes to import coins, even though they don't have the old block data anymore, because of pruning. Which means, that instead of carrying the whole UTXO set from the start, they could use "txoutproof" values, and gradually import historical data, and only to the extent of actual usage. And then, if some coins are left untouched for years, then they don't have to store any information about it.

Also, by doing it in that way, it would actually create an incentive, to keep your own transactions on your side. Then, if spammers will be unable to provide proofs, that their UTXOs exist, then they would be unable to spend their coins. Which will solve the problem of spammers, putting stuff in the UTXO set, and thinking that the rest of the network will store it forever. In theory it could, but it is not strictly needed, to have a purely monetary network, to keep the whole UTXO set. Instead, it could be shifted into user's side, to provide a proof, that a given UTXO exists, when spending it.

[MoparMiningLLC]

But I agree that objective is important too. They didn't create bcash, bcashsv or lukecoin to innovate or solve any problem. They created these shit-fork-coins to make some noise and by using bitcoin's "brand" fill their own pockets. That uselessness and their objective makes their product a shitcoin.

well they believe they created their alt to solve a problem. bcash for block size - bsv no idea except for CSW to be in charge so he could "regain" his coins (yes I know the satoshi coins are not his - tell him that lol) and BIP110 believe they are saving the blockchain from spam - they are not.

[Danish Ali]

That's why Dogecoin is a shitcoin as well

Fair enough, at least that is consistent. Can't really argue with someone who's willing to call their own example a shitcoin too instead of making exceptions.

They didn't create bcash, bcashsv or lukecoin to innovate or solve any problem. They created these shit-fork-coins to make some noise and by using bitcoin's "brand" fill their own pockets. That uselessness and their objective makes their product a shitcoin.

This easily makes it the strongest argument so far. This logic (intent + no real new ideas) makes way more sense as a test for a shitcoin than simply “did they copy code?” It is a much cleaner line, which is not what I was pushing back against before.
One thing I would throw out, by that logic, plenty of original code altcoins would also count as shitcoins, since many of them are not particularly creative either. So maybe real question isnt “forks vs altcoins,” but rather “did this project bring anything new or is it just hype and branding?” Forks just make that obvious faster because copy paste is so blatant.

[M47AK16]

That's why Dogecoin is a shitcoin as well

Fair enough, at least that is consistent. Can't really argue with someone who's willing to call their own example a shitcoin too instead of making exceptions.

To be fair, any hard fork or anything else that is a change in the crypto world will get questions, because you can't just accept a thing for being that thing; you have to pull it apart to see if it is good or not. I understand it may not be that easy or great for the long term, but it is definitely something that would not be all that bad either.

I think we should put it in a way where it is not really easy to be pulled apart; if you build something like that, then people will try and fail. Of course it is not easy to build something like that, but this Blake thing looks like just a personal use thing, nothing too brand new, just a thing to be used personally and not a big deal at all; hence you may just ignore it.

[pooya87]

For example: if they have the block headers, then users can gradually import needed parts of the UTXO set, while leaving everything else unused.

You are right, but the problem is that you are trying to solve a problem that wouldn't have existed if they had created a new coin from scratch instead of trying to create a fork out of bitcoin!

well they believe they created their alt to solve a problem. bcash for block size - bsv no idea except for CSW to be in charge so he could "regain" his coins (yes I know the satoshi coins are not his - tell him that lol) and BIP110 believe they are saving the blockchain from spam - they are not.

They broke one of the most important principles of Bitcoin without which it wouldn't even exist.
You see, the whole idea of Bitcoin was that we create a decentralized P2P payment system that works based on what the majority say. They broke that by creating their fork, calling it "real bitcoin" while they only were a very small minority.

To me, it looks like they saw a real existing problem (eg. block size cap, or the spam attack) and then abused that to create a shitcoin and fill their own pockets. This is actually the bread and butter of shitcoiners! How many times we've seen a shitcoin be sold to the public as "the better bitcoin because it has faster blocks"?

[MoparMiningLLC]

well they believe they created their alt to solve a problem. bcash for block size - bsv no idea except for CSW to be in charge so he could "regain" his coins (yes I know the satoshi coins are not his - tell him that lol) and BIP110 believe they are saving the blockchain from spam - they are not.

They broke one of the most important principles of Bitcoin without which it wouldn't even exist.
You see, the whole idea of Bitcoin was that we create a decentralized P2P payment system that works based on what the majority say. They broke that by creating their fork, calling it "real bitcoin" while they only were a very small minority.

To me, it looks like they saw a real existing problem (eg. block size cap, or the spam attack) and then abused that to create a shitcoin and fill their own pockets. This is actually the bread and butter of shitcoiners! How many times we've seen a shitcoin be sold to the public as "the better bitcoin because it has faster blocks"?

and they cannot even stop all the spam - some of it yes. but each person on Bitcoin has the option to do the same - of their own choosing via the settings they put on their node. BIP110 was just trying to force the same settings across the entire network. So while I detest ordinals/nfts/spam etc I dont agree with what they were doing by trying to force it on everyone - especially without consensus - something that is needed for Bitcoin.

[Emitdama]

well they believe they created their alt to solve a problem. bcash for block size - bsv no idea except for CSW to be in charge so he could "regain" his coins (yes I know the satoshi coins are not his - tell him that lol) and BIP110 believe they are saving the blockchain from spam - they are not.

They broke one of the most important principles of Bitcoin without which it wouldn't even exist.
You see, the whole idea of Bitcoin was that we create a decentralized P2P payment system that works based on what the majority say. They broke that by creating their fork, calling it "real bitcoin" while they only were a very small minority.

To me, it looks like they saw a real existing problem (eg. block size cap, or the spam attack) and then abused that to create a shitcoin and fill their own pockets. This is actually the bread and butter of shitcoiners! How many times we've seen a shitcoin be sold to the public as "the better bitcoin because it has faster blocks"?

and they cannot even stop all the spam - some of it yes. but each person on Bitcoin has the option to do the same - of their own choosing via the settings they put on their node. BIP110 was just trying to force the same settings across the entire network. So while I detest ordinals/nfts/spam etc I dont agree with what they were doing by trying to force it on everyone - especially without consensus - something that is needed for Bitcoin.

That is why we are in SegWit mostly right now, because we all agreed that legacy was getting too expensive and we needed a solution, and we moved to SegWit. Back in the day, the addresses all started with the number 1; look at the SegWit ones, and you will see that it is not the same. So yeah, there could be changes. Nobody says that there will never be a change and that it has to stay exactly as it is. We have made changes before, and I am sure that if there is one that people agree on, then we could make changes again.

However, if anyone wants to make a change, then they have to convince people to make that change. Even the Lightning Network is not being used, even though it claims to be faster and cheaper, because it is not giving any trust in its security so far. Basically, if this thing done to make sure that it is "better" was actually better, then they had very bad marketing, because nobody believes it, and nobody moved to this. If anyone wants to make a change, we all have to go there, and they need to convince us to do that.

[Abiky]

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.

This is starting to look like the "Block Size Wars" from 2017. It lead to the separation of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. Only this time, the minority chain will quickly fade away due to limited support from the community. Not like BCH which is still with us. I mean, who wants to use a chain that's subject to censorship? Keeping Bitcoin only for economic/monetary uses, while restricting the rest, would be none other than pure censorship. Just what banks do these days.

The whole idea of Bitcoin is to be a decentralized, open network for all. You can do "anything" with it, as long as it's legal (and moral) to do so. While I'm disturbed by the fact that Ordinals inscriptions and other on-chain protocols/features increase network congestion, that's part of how an open network should be. Open and free (in terms of liberty). I'm sure the whole purpose of the fork is for Luke and his friends to obtain "free coins" in the process. You usually get the same amount of coins on the splintered chain after the fork. Just like what happened with BCH and BSV. The new chain will get "dumped" real hard, while Bitcoin (BTC) will keep going strong. Mark my words.