Why should a hard fork never exist in a digital currency?
Among the affected users, there are users who have cryptocurrencies, as well as miners, who work to protect users' transactions by mining the blocks and earning a reward for the work done.
But there is a concept that has been adopted in almost any update: a "hard fork", which is nothing more than performing an update of the currency software, which is practically reusing the source code of the original currency, making the adjustments, and re- harness the existing blockchain base of the source currency. Wait, why re-take advantage of a blockchain base in a "new" currency?
Crypto-currencies and their source codes
The programming codes for most currencies exist in public versioning repositories, just like Github, or Gitlab, depending on the community that manages it.
Anyone can download the code, compile it, and keep this version "as-is" active indefinitely.
Currencies like Bitcoin are managed by communities, but an update to the source code of the application of this currency is an almost impossible task, since users and miners do not insist on updating the source code, mainly to adopt new features.
Well-managed currencies, with a practically proprietary development team, on the other hand, manage to have this more naturally, as with Bytecoin, which despite being considered a huge "scam", or a fraudulent currency, its code is updated and managed in such a way that they are able to maintain the same software for the whole community, being able to update, with great adoption of update through the network. Of course, the currency is small in market capital, but what the development team can do is many years ahead of any currency like Bitcoin, where resistance to accepting updates is one of the biggest.
So, when a currency needs to undergo a security correction, the development team practically makes the change, it is usually reviewed by a huge number of developers, and users need to adopt the updated software so that in a given block it starts to operate with the update.
But when the development team itself diverges between having the update, or not having it, then new currencies may emerge, and to be able to take advantage of the user base of the previous currency, copy the blockchain from the source currency to a given block, and a new branching of the currency begins, using the same wallets, private keys, and: "values".
The duplication of digital values
As soon as a new currency is created, the values that existed on the blockchain until a certain date will also exist, so the currency is already worth something, different from a currency that was just created.
So when Bitcoin Cash appeared, whoever had any corresponding value in the wallet until the time of the "hard fork", had its value cloned to Bitcoin Cash, and in turn, cloned to Bitcoin ABC and Bitcoin SV (there were 2 recent hard forks) .
So, if someone had 1 million BTC, they would also have 1 million BCH, 1 million BCHABC and 1 million BCHSV.
That is why: a "hard fork" is the worst thing that can exist for currency, even though it is the best thing that can exist for currency. It is simply the double-edged sword, cut to the side of good, and at the same time cut to the side of evil, as if they were a huge divergence between yes / no, generating a new value for this value.
Monetary doubling
In economics, a given value must correspond to another in exactly the same proportionality and quantity, from the point that its values represent the real complete ecosystem of a given place, such as a country, where the values are correlated to GDP (gross domestic product), so, when a country issues more notes, prints more bills, without increasing GDP, this means that the value no longer matches that of other countries, losing value.
At the time that Brazil built Brasília, thousands of bills were issued for the country's development, in an unrestrained and totally uncontrolled inflation, where there was no security in the local currency, and many of the goods in Brazil at the time, such as cars, which were sold in dollars due to their stability.
The biggest "scam" in history
A crypto-asset should follow the reverse of that proposed by the updates. We saw that with the "hard fork", Bitcoin simply plummeted from its $ 7000 to $ 3300, without an explanation; however, it must be understood that it was not by chance, after all, now the user has BTC, BCH, BCHABC and BCHSV to operate.
As much as absolutely anyone with values held in portfolios after the "hard fork" of BCH could have values in BCHABC or BCHSV, who stayed behind with thousands of BTCs without changes, ended up receiving the same in all forks, that is, thousands new BTCs have been "issued", and will continue to be with each new "hard fork".
That is, nothing less, than the biggest "scam" in the history of cryptocurrencies, where simply a group of developers "really" prints money, simply by reusing the blockchain, claiming to be an "update" of the original currency, but this is a huge lie.
The Bytecoin team, as already described above, makes several updates on its network, maintaining the same currency, thus, by security strategy, preventing private keys from being used in other forks improperly by fraudulent software, and that they end up being cloned to access currencies in all other currencies.
They are against, at least until now, the development of currencies that generate a new path of the blocks, doubling the values, portfolios, and private / public keys, as it happens with XMR (Monero), which is also based on the same technology, however it was a clean fork initially, without sharing the portfolios, but started to perform these same actions with XMO and etc.
Etherum has also been through this, and users of the Etherum Classic have had their values cloned to the new currency, while the "Classic" is for those who do not want to update the software, which is why it happened.
Updates disabled
The biggest security flaw in crypto-currencies, which can deteriorate them completely, is the lack of adoption of software updates and users' wallets, which were developed for an indefinite period, without having a schedule that forces its own update. .
With this, however much the cloned values initially make it appear that the person has "earned more", over time, the market will tend to correct this amount of new currencies that were "pre-mined" with the copy of the previous blockchain, and this new amount will start to converge towards a fall, until the values co-related to the countries' currencies and GDPs are equalized.
Since we are in a fall scenario, then it’s not bad to take down right away with new hard forks, isn’t it? This can be good for information security, scalability, but very bad for those who have coins.
Changing and / or updating a currency is nothing more, nothing less, than the same mess that happens when a country changes its local currency. It's a disorder.
"Anti-fragile" digital currencies
It is very difficult to find "anti-fragile" coins in the middle of a scenario where more than 1000 coins are generated every day worldwide, and many of the source codes are free for consultation and replication, change, available on Github for anyone create a new version.
We do not currently have a so-called anti-fragile currency, but we can perhaps look for currencies that can do the same way of updating your software from time to time to ensure information security, forcing all network users to update. the software, and at the same time, keep the same blochchain, without duplicating it in your main currency, without generating new currency pairs.
Currently currencies like Bytecoin, which has this principle, unfortunately are on the opposite side, being considered a "scam", being removed from exchanges around the world, and their value falling by the minute, with small and light spikes in the past, that are hard to happen again; being monetarily extremely fragile and insecure; and slightly at risk of being maintained, given that in order to have this effective control of using the same blockchain, it requires a proprietary development team committed to a single principle without divergences, as any divergence could be fatal for you and your peers , if any.
Conclusion
We understand that crypto-currencies are very resistant to the updating of wallet software by users and miners, forcing new and urgent and desperate updates by the development team to copy the blockchain, duplicating wallets, cryptographic keys, to keep the currency in existence. new update, but this divergence of opinion leads to the fall of the currency, due to the simple method of the economy of "printing of paper money", which leads to inflation, bringing down the price of the currency in relation to the others.
A good development team that does not have friction or divergence of thoughts, can adopt a forced software update from a given block, ensuring security, scalability, preventing new currency pairs from appearing, and to prevent the market from correcting downwards by "issuing" new cloned coins during the fork.
No comments