4 ms·

I think this article is making a serious mistake in confusing different kinds of forks. We use the word fork to describe the act of commandeering the head of t

I think this article is making a serious mistake in confusing different kinds of forks. We use the word fork to describe the act of commandeering the head of the existing BTC blockchain and using your own miners to continue it in a way that diverges from the original chain. This can have a negative effect on the value of both chains due to inverse network effects. We also use the word fork to describe the act of cloning a branch of code and than adding new commits on top of it to create new software. This is good since more coins increase experimentation and drive innovation and does not in any way effect the existing BTC network or its value (unless you believe we are already in a zero-sum game with cryptos where every new coin reduces BTC). This article leads with "Some 19 Bitcoin forks came out last year -- but up to 50 more could happen this year" and then completely conflates the two by talking about Litecoin et. al. and Bitcoin Cash interchangeably. To my knowledge, Bitcoin Cash is the only 'true' fork that survived beyond the splitting of the BTC chain, but please correct me if I'm wrong on that. It would be scaremongering if I thought it was intentional.

thisisit 9y ago
Well, the correct word is "hard" fork. Bitcoin gold is another hard fork of Bitcoin which survived. Though there are several software forks based on bitcoin client implementation like Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Unlimited.
- philipodonnell 9y ago
  Are you aware of anywhere that keeps data like that as a reference? CoinMarketCap groups into coins and tokens, but not into soft/hard forks of which codebases. Although I suppose at a certain point you'd get into the argument about how many changes are required to make it a new codebase even though it originally forked... but a question for another time perhaps.
  - thisisit 9y ago
    There is a limited list on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bitcoin_forks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bitcoin_forks Most forks which have no value are quickly forgotten so this might be a reliable list.
  - lug0r 9y ago
    Well at least for bitcoin there's a nice summary by BitMEX Research [1] [1] https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoins-consensus-forks/ https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoins-consensus-forks/
olfactory 9y ago
I think the main difference between the two kinds of forks is that in one case existing holders of Bitcoin get to own both the original and the fork, and in the other case the fork must bootstrap itself from scratch without the added benefit of a bunch of biased people who are happy to see any new speculative endeavor grow (as long as they own some). Hence, hard forks are actually much more likely to occur, at least until the inverse network effects you describe actually exist in reality. In a highly speculative market they really don't exist, or at least don't exist enough to discourage a fair bit of aggressive forking. I predict at least two hard forks in 2018.
- philipodonnell 9y ago
  > hard forks are actually much more likely to occur, at least until the inverse network effects you describe actually exist in reality. I am working on an article that talks about the opposing incentives behind hard forks as a form of artificial scarcity. This seems to be the main objection from classical financial types, that its all virtual and you can make more at any time by forking so its worthless. Your comment implies thoughtfulness on this topic. Do you have any good references on this from an economic theory standpoint? I could argue that there are actually two kinds of hard forks, one where there is some change to the underlying protocol (Bitcoin Cash) or reallocation of funds (undoing the DAO hack) that, at least in the eyes of the authors, increases the utility of the new network more than the negative effect of the split. If the total network value rises then, in a rational market, it means that the utility did increase. A second kind of fork is just a cash-grab fork. Split the bitcoin chain but don't do anything to the protocol, ala https://forkgen.tech https://forkgen.tech. This is (I think) what concerns finance professionals more than forks which increase utility.
  - olfactory 9y ago
    > I could argue that there are actually two kinds of hard forks, one where there is some change to the underlying protocol (Bitcoin Cash) or reallocation of funds (undoing the DAO hack) that, at least in the eyes of the authors, increases the utility of the new network more than the negative effect of the split. If the total network value rises then, in a rational market, it means that the utility did increase. I think this is exactly correct from an economic perspective. But I think that in the heavily speculative market it will take a while for the market to actually converge into the state that you describe. I'd argue that right now there is virtually no disincentive for doing hard forks, except perhaps for the friction entailed in getting it listed on Coinbase. If a hard fork "launches" with a low price, many speculators will simply view it as a buy opportunity, whereas if it launches with a high price, it has already achieved some level of legitimacy. This is because hard forks that are effectively governance changes are not really purchased for fundamentals-based reasons at this point, because the governance aspects of BTC have really not been tested much to date. I actually have in mind a few very interesting hard forks if you would like to collaborate and attempt to make some money by launching these with me in the process :) I too am interested in it from a research perspective but it's very tempting to try to "add value" by launching some important hard forks that the community hasn't thought of yet.
shawabawa3 9y ago
> Bitcoin Cash is the only 'true' fork that survived beyond the splitting of the BTC chain, but please correct me if I'm wrong on that. There's at least a few more. "Bitcoin Gold" and "Bitcoin Diamond" come to mind, there's also something called "Super Bitcoin". They all seems like complete trash to me but somehow they seem to have a market value
- philipodonnell 9y ago
  > They all seems like complete trash to me but somehow they seem to have a market value This is probably the defining comment of this age of blockchain. :-)
- xPhobophobia 9y ago
  If you had bitcoin before the fork, you'd have some of the fork, right? How do you access something like that?
  - mekpro 9y ago
    If you hold the the private key of the coin, simply download the forked coin client and sync with the old key. The money should automatically appeared. The story is more out of control if you hold the money in the trader. Since you had to rely on the trader to enable support for that new coin, which may happen later or not happen at all.
- vm 9y ago
  How do Bitcoin holders "receive" or trade on these forks? Coinbase eventually distributed Bitcoin Cash but I haven't heard anything about Bitcoin Gold or Diamond.
  - czechdeveloper 9y ago
    If you have your private key, you can just use same key to trade forked coins (using given coin's wallet). If you don't I guess you depend on whoever has your key. But rule of thumb is, you don't own a key, you don't own a bitcoin. I would just move original coins to different wallet first as I'm not sure if same transaction cannot be replayed on main bitcoin chain. You can check here what you can get for your addresses https://btcdiv.com/ https://btcdiv.com/
thephyber 9y ago
> Bitcoin Cash is the only 'true' fork that survived beyond the splitting of the BTC chain This seems like a "No True Scotsman" fallacy and isn't correct unless you take liberties with the concept of "true fork" or you are making an observation about the lack of mass-scale adoption of the smaller forks. Every protocol change in Bitcoin is in the most literal sense a "fork". There was a time at which the proposed protocol change might or might not survive the fork attempt. The community (developers, miners, holders, transactors, etc) all vote with their feet.
- philipodonnell 9y ago
  > lack of mass-scale adoption of the smaller forks. Yeah, this was the context I was using it in. 'True' meaning like 'survived' in any real sense.

thisisit 9y ago

Well, the correct word is "hard" fork. Bitcoin gold is another hard fork of Bitcoin which survived. Though there are several software forks based on bitcoin client implementation like Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Unlimited.

philipodonnell 9y ago
Are you aware of anywhere that keeps data like that as a reference? CoinMarketCap groups into coins and tokens, but not into soft/hard forks of which codebases. Although I suppose at a certain point you'd get into the argument about how many changes are required to make it a new codebase even though it originally forked... but a question for another time perhaps.
- thisisit 9y ago
  There is a limited list on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bitcoin_forks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bitcoin_forks Most forks which have no value are quickly forgotten so this might be a reliable list.
- lug0r 9y ago
  Well at least for bitcoin there's a nice summary by BitMEX Research [1] [1] https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoins-consensus-forks/ https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoins-consensus-forks/

olfactory 9y ago

I think the main difference between the two kinds of forks is that in one case existing holders of Bitcoin get to own both the original and the fork, and in the other case the fork must bootstrap itself from scratch without the added benefit of a bunch of biased people who are happy to see any new speculative endeavor grow (as long as they own some). Hence, hard forks are actually much more likely to occur, at least until the inverse network effects you describe actually exist in reality. In a highly speculative market they really don't exist, or at least don't exist enough to discourage a fair bit of aggressive forking. I predict at least two hard forks in 2018.

philipodonnell 9y ago
> hard forks are actually much more likely to occur, at least until the inverse network effects you describe actually exist in reality. I am working on an article that talks about the opposing incentives behind hard forks as a form of artificial scarcity. This seems to be the main objection from classical financial types, that its all virtual and you can make more at any time by forking so its worthless. Your comment implies thoughtfulness on this topic. Do you have any good references on this from an economic theory standpoint? I could argue that there are actually two kinds of hard forks, one where there is some change to the underlying protocol (Bitcoin Cash) or reallocation of funds (undoing the DAO hack) that, at least in the eyes of the authors, increases the utility of the new network more than the negative effect of the split. If the total network value rises then, in a rational market, it means that the utility did increase. A second kind of fork is just a cash-grab fork. Split the bitcoin chain but don't do anything to the protocol, ala https://forkgen.tech https://forkgen.tech. This is (I think) what concerns finance professionals more than forks which increase utility.
- olfactory 9y ago
  > I could argue that there are actually two kinds of hard forks, one where there is some change to the underlying protocol (Bitcoin Cash) or reallocation of funds (undoing the DAO hack) that, at least in the eyes of the authors, increases the utility of the new network more than the negative effect of the split. If the total network value rises then, in a rational market, it means that the utility did increase. I think this is exactly correct from an economic perspective. But I think that in the heavily speculative market it will take a while for the market to actually converge into the state that you describe. I'd argue that right now there is virtually no disincentive for doing hard forks, except perhaps for the friction entailed in getting it listed on Coinbase. If a hard fork "launches" with a low price, many speculators will simply view it as a buy opportunity, whereas if it launches with a high price, it has already achieved some level of legitimacy. This is because hard forks that are effectively governance changes are not really purchased for fundamentals-based reasons at this point, because the governance aspects of BTC have really not been tested much to date. I actually have in mind a few very interesting hard forks if you would like to collaborate and attempt to make some money by launching these with me in the process :) I too am interested in it from a research perspective but it's very tempting to try to "add value" by launching some important hard forks that the community hasn't thought of yet.

shawabawa3 9y ago

> Bitcoin Cash is the only 'true' fork that survived beyond the splitting of the BTC chain, but please correct me if I'm wrong on that. There's at least a few more. "Bitcoin Gold" and "Bitcoin Diamond" come to mind, there's also something called "Super Bitcoin". They all seems like complete trash to me but somehow they seem to have a market value

philipodonnell 9y ago
> They all seems like complete trash to me but somehow they seem to have a market value This is probably the defining comment of this age of blockchain. :-)
xPhobophobia 9y ago
If you had bitcoin before the fork, you'd have some of the fork, right? How do you access something like that?
- mekpro 9y ago
  If you hold the the private key of the coin, simply download the forked coin client and sync with the old key. The money should automatically appeared. The story is more out of control if you hold the money in the trader. Since you had to rely on the trader to enable support for that new coin, which may happen later or not happen at all.
vm 9y ago
How do Bitcoin holders "receive" or trade on these forks? Coinbase eventually distributed Bitcoin Cash but I haven't heard anything about Bitcoin Gold or Diamond.
- czechdeveloper 9y ago
  If you have your private key, you can just use same key to trade forked coins (using given coin's wallet). If you don't I guess you depend on whoever has your key. But rule of thumb is, you don't own a key, you don't own a bitcoin. I would just move original coins to different wallet first as I'm not sure if same transaction cannot be replayed on main bitcoin chain. You can check here what you can get for your addresses https://btcdiv.com/ https://btcdiv.com/

thephyber 9y ago

> Bitcoin Cash is the only 'true' fork that survived beyond the splitting of the BTC chain This seems like a "No True Scotsman" fallacy and isn't correct unless you take liberties with the concept of "true fork" or you are making an observation about the lack of mass-scale adoption of the smaller forks. Every protocol change in Bitcoin is in the most literal sense a "fork". There was a time at which the proposed protocol change might or might not survive the fork attempt. The community (developers, miners, holders, transactors, etc) all vote with their feet.

philipodonnell 9y ago
> lack of mass-scale adoption of the smaller forks. Yeah, this was the context I was using it in. 'True' meaning like 'survived' in any real sense.