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
This is probably the defining comment of this age of blockchain. :-)
Coinbase eventually distributed Bitcoin Cash but I haven't heard anything about Bitcoin Gold or Diamond.
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/
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.
Though there are several software forks based on bitcoin client implementation like Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Unlimited.
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.
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.
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.
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. This is (I think) what concerns finance professionals more than forks which increase utility.
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.
> except perhaps for the friction entailed in getting it listed on Coinbase
And therein lies the rub. I'd say its not only Coinbase but exchanges in general. My understanding is that even the worse of exchanges like HitBtc charge 25 BTC to list a coin.
So, if you have plans to make at least 25-30 BTC to get through the exchange doors, count me in :P
I agree with this, actually. The hard fork showed that ETH would be forcibly redistributed if the result of correct VM behavior was not what the maintainers had in mind.
So the ETH hard fork fits into the very typical pattern in human institutions of excessive centralization resulting in corrupt behavior. Most of the early adopters of ETH who lost money due to the DAO attack were essentially the political allies of the maintainers, who in turn held great sway with miners. We've recently learned that ETH mining is far more centralized than BTC.
The ETH hard fork was a nice wakeup call that even for supposedly enlightened proponents of decentralization and distributed consensus, when there is real money on the line pretty much any excuse will be acceptable for why the "theft" had to be unwound via a hard fork.
Ironically, in order for market incentives to work properly in a smart contract system, finding exploitable cases of correct (or incorrect) behavior of the VM should result in profit, or else there is simply no market incentive for the system to be secure and to behave in a predictable manner.
In order for Ethereum to have passed the institutional test imposed on it by the DAO hack, it would have had to deal with the difficult issue of victims of the attack claiming "theft" and would have had to allow the difficult lesson to be learned. Now that we know that Ethereum was a toy when the DAO hack occurred, when will it stop being a toy? Is the current fork real?
Anyway, apologies for the hyperbole, I just wanted to make the above point.
I don't think HN has direct messaging, but shoot me an email to odonnell.phil at the service that shall not be named but but in all likelihood starts with a G and rhymes with Email.
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.
Yeah, this was the context I was using it in. 'True' meaning like 'survived' in any real sense.
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.