Crypto Schisms and Fork Psychology


Forking within the crypto ecosystem is often a controversial subject. Many crypto-enthusiasts loathe it, taking particular exception to the so-called “contentious hard fork.” They believe hard-forking damages a cryptocurrency, and say it should be avoided at all costs. They also believe forking is detrimental to the market and represents a financial burden. However, this view is limited and narrow-minded.

Also read: Lawyers to Help the Russian Crypto Industry Deal With Inadequate Laws

Forking for Good, Forking for Bad

Contentious hard-forking is how the community manages its systemic health, prevents bad actors from gumming up the infrastructure, and aligns the protocol in accordance with group principles. Forking is thus more than a way to upgrade a protocol. In reality, forking is a way to maintain self-care in governance without resorting to violence. It is about group dynamics and cooperating to discover peaceful solutions. It is as much psychological as technological.

Vitalik Buterin, Ethereum’s creator, agrees. In a cogent article called “Hard Forks, Soft Forks, Defaults and Coercion,” he said:

“Proponents of hard forks are often derided as trying to effect a “hostile take over” of a network, and “force” users to go along with them. Additionally, the risk of chain splits is often used to bill hard forks as “unsafe”. It is my personal viewpoint that these criticisms are wrong, and furthermore in many cases completely backwards.”

 Definition of a Cryptocurrency Fork

A cryptocurrency hard fork equates to a network chain split. It means stakeholders decide to divide a preexisting cryptocurrency into two competing chains. Both chains share the same transactional history, but become two unique coins that follow different paths.

In essence, these splits are how decentralized communities resolve disputes and come to terms with technological and philosophical differences. This is different from a soft fork, which is a coercive protocol change that is backwards compatible, but forces users to comply with its rule set.

In a Medium article called Blockchain Forks Explained, Nate Maddrey said, “A blockchain fork is essentially a collectively agreed upon software update.”

Maddrey’s definition concisely explains the technological fact of a fork, but as everyone knows, a blockchain “upgrade” is not always necessarily agreed upon. These “contentious hard forks” often cause disputes. Matter of a fact, sometimes “upgrades” in the cryptocurrency space are seen as attacks or political maneuvers by others. This causes natural schisms to crop up.

Bitcoin Schisms and Reason for Division

Some of these individuals go so far to suggest these “attacks” are an attempt to undermine Bitcoin or usurp the protocol, as Vitalik suggested. The original Bitcoin fork, which split off in Aug. 1st, 2017, creating Bitcoin cash, is a perfect example of a contentious hard fork.

Leading up to this fork, divergent communities argued about how to effectively upgrade the protocol to meet demand. Each camp supported differing views on how to scale the cryptocurrency. On the surface, these differences were purely technological. However, at the center of these opinions rested fundamental philosophical beliefs on the nature and purpose of the cryptocurrency.

The Bitcoin Cash camp primarily supported the notion that cryptocurrency should be used as cash for the world. This was also the view shared by the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto. Conversely, the core camp mainly supported Bitcoin as a digital commodity, something akin to gold. These perspectives ultimately mold popular thinking on the economics and purpose of the technology. If it is cash for the world, it’s a paradigmatic-shifting technology. If it is just “digital gold,” it’s a money-making — or money-destroying — speculative asset.

Bitcoin Cash ABC and Bitcoin SV

Fast forward another year to the recent Bitcoin Cash ABC and Bitcoin SV split. This split was even more political and less technological. For instance, the Bitcoin SV camp raised the block size immediately to 128MB and rejected the option to add smart contracting functionality.

The differences were basically superficial. The Bitcoin Cash ABC camp has always intended to raise the blockchain size to meet market demand. It just wasn’t necessary at this time. Adding the smart contracting implementation via new op-codes was the largest difference, but it makes sense from a market perspective. The fact that Bitcoin ABC sought to enable certain op-code functionality speaks to the idea that the more utility a crypto project has, the more value it will accrue. And this does not take away from its utility as a cryptocurrency…

Article Source…