Quote from: thejaytiesto on September 14, 2016, 03:19:35 PM

Core's conservative view on hard forks is what has made Bitcoin survive for 7+ years. Look at the ETH/ETC disaster. We must not hard fork unless we have like 99% of support.

Quote from: calkob on September 14, 2016, 04:29:53 PM

Yeah great idea, lets take Bitcoin which has billions of $ investment and split it in two and see what works. like seriously did you go to school? Roll Eyes

Quote from: severaldetails on September 14, 2016, 06:30:43 PM

A fork would drive 95% of the people away because thy don't know how to handle that situation.
After the way the ether fork turnd out, even a lot of the smaller traders would resign from the cryptomarket.

Quote from: ETFbitcoin on September 14, 2016, 02:55:24 PM

Remember ETH hard fork? The community and it's price after hard fork?
Maybe better learn from past experience and wait a bit longer.

Fact check, Ethereum is doing just fine, it has not even lost value for investors, especially if you take the value of ETC into account as well. It even still has a decent amount of volume, so these claims about ETH and ETC are false.

Quote from: Lauda on September 14, 2016, 05:22:06 PM

As we've observed with ETH, hard forks can go terribly wrong when rushed. A minority is enough to keep another chain alive. This sets a very bad precedent, both by forking without consensus/reverting events and by rushing a HF.

I disagree, I do not think anything went terribly wrong with the ETH hard fork. I even think that it sets a positive precedent. It gives people more freedom of choice, I can not see anything wrong with that.

These type of splits do in effect enable the core principles of volunteerism within Bitcoin. Everyone can have the Ethereum they want, whether they agreed with the fork or not. I think the same solution is actually ideal for Bitcoin right now, that way these split communities and ideologies can go their own way in freedom.

Quote from: Lauda on September 14, 2016, 05:22:06 PM

I'm not saying I'm anti-HF in general, however I'm against irrational decision making with a very limited view point. I think that a HF, with a grace period of 6 months may be plausible and would likely not be against it (dependent on the change-set of course).

I think that Bitcoin will split multiple times, within the next six months. Nobody can really stop it, that is a beautiful thing. I suppose somebody could create a "genesis fork" with a six month grace period, it would most likely not be the first chain to split off the Bitcoin network and gain a significant market share.

Quote from: marky89 on September 14, 2016, 10:17:55 PM

How could we ever know that we have 99% support behind a fork? There's no way to measure it. No amount of node voting, coin voting or miner voting can establish that. More to the point, if we are talking about processing power, hash rate of ETH:ETC was 99:1 at one point. Still, the network split. People really underestimate the risks. There is literally no way to ever know how a hard fork will resolve. It's impossible to know.

This is exactly why a hard fork is the best way to resolve such a dispute, since after the split and over the next few years we will see exactly how much demand there really is for such an alternative chain.