Or was BTC's value being held back by technical limitations, and the hard forks opened up new demand and boosted the overall value for holders of the coin?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Or was BTC's value being held back by technical limitations, and the hard forks opened up new demand and boosted the overall value for holders of the coin?
also valid, i just wish we could innovate without splintering the OG chain
Imagine if you could hardfork your steemit account into two accounts that both have all the same followers, plus some fraction of your reputation and PS.
Compare that to starting a second new steemit account from scratch and trying to build from nothing, among tremendous competition of other new users.
There is just so much of a benefit to a chain split from a major coin compared with building a new community from zero, and no way to impose regulations or restrictions on hard forks. I think all the biggest coins will continue to see chain splits indefinitely.
I am not concerned about splintering the mining community, because we are way over-saturated already; new miners do not increase network capacity -- they just increase difficulty and electricity consumption, and that's been the case for a long time. Until Bitcoin reaches a point where the rate of transactions is actually going to be affected by the loss or gain of mining capacity (by, for example, adopting the changes that BCH represented), then chain splits should not dilute the value of the original chain.
It's like using an already lighted candle to light another; the first loses nothing, although the second gains enormously from the association.