Quote from: chainganginc on August 23, 2025, 12:59:08 PM

Quote from: ₿itcoin on August 23, 2025, 12:13:13 PM

BCH, BTG BSV and other shit fork occurred because the community was not able to agree on the direction of the protocol, primarily over block size & fairness of mining but most failed due to a lack of support and liquidity. There are 100 forks shit, but 90% dead now

But now we no longer need drama, we have evolved to cooperate. We got the opportunity to upgrade (scaling, privacy & lightning support) without splitting the chains because of the soft forks like SegWit & Taproot. Therefore, it is the reason why threats of hard fork have not been witnessed in the recent past. In other words, the use of forks was that of a chaos-guided experiment, whereas now Bitcoin is advancing intelligently through consensus.

What if Bitcoin cash was merge mined it might have been better. Ive been trying to think of a idea that can really help. Like a merge mined fork called "Bitbill" the name may change but I like it. Could help miners with electric bills and late comers. The block size may have to be raised 64MB sounds crazy. But I would like the TPS to be more than Bitcoin Cash. I think support is most important but liquidity will come with a great protocol. The branding and marketing can push it into being adopted.

merge mining Bitbill to Bitcoin is not particularly new. Merged mining is putting one rig to work on two chains simultaneously & it is a real thing. This was done by Bitcoin & ~~Namecoin~~ shitcoin a long time ago and it is a 0 extra power cost action to provide increased security to smaller chains. The problem is that the ~~altchain~~ shitchain has to be supported with AuxPoW & dev skills to connect it appropriately as it is not just plug n play. Increasing blocksize to 64MB is just lol ridiculous & it would actually decimate decentralization also bring back the scaling nightmare that we have just left behind. so stay with Bitcoin compatible upgrades like Lightning, no need shit fork