Quote from: ApplePieForMe on April 27, 2019, 07:40:45 AM

One interesting argument I've been following is by Peter Schiff who is permbull on gold and quite pessimistic on bitcoin is that you can fork bitcoin and therefore we can't talk about limited supply.

But it wouldn't be Bitcoin, I get it. It would be Bitcoin2 or whatever. However the properties would be the same the only thing it doesn't have is the trust and network right.

There has already been 44 forks
https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/05/22/bitcoin-hard-fork-useless/
I got to say, people using or investing in anything like that is silly, It it pretty much like investing into counterfeit fiat. Trading your gold for fake gold. You want silver use litecoin(or another altcoin that actually has more tech features) not bitcoin cash or diamond or private. Infact the guy that created bitcoin cash, Satoshi should sue him for copyright and counterfeiting.

Correct, but right now you are leaving 81% trust to the Chinese as that is where most of the hashing power is coming from, I do agree the Chinese miners are 1/3rd of the population and should have 33.3333 of the hashing power but not 81% in one country that is not a smart "decentralized" network, Instead each person on the network should have equal hashing power to provide equal distribution and a network not prone to 51% attacks.

But yah, if the fork becomes the main chain that people use, then it does become "bitcoin"
Example: (Eth classic is the real eth, but more people use ETH now and ETH is considered the main chain.

If the network agrees to reset the chain and go back to before the fork then that would be the bitcoin. It is up to the censuses of the network, just keep in mind 81% of the users in the censuses are from China. That does not appeal to me as I am from Canada and unlike my country they seem to work together better, like a hive mind colony.

So it is up to the network to decide what is Bitcoin or "Bitcoin2"

From what I understand, maybe another member can give insight into this.