{"id":301276,"date":"2025-06-19T02:24:16","date_gmt":"2025-06-19T02:24:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peraltafinancing.com\/uncategorized\/fifth-year-of-r-bitcoin-moderation-in-review\/"},"modified":"2025-06-19T02:24:16","modified_gmt":"2025-06-19T02:24:16","slug":"fifth-year-of-r-bitcoin-moderation-in-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=301276","title":{"rendered":"Fifth year of \/r\/Bitcoin moderation in review"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\nContinuing the tradition, I would like to once again look at how the last year of \/r\/Bitcoin<\/a> moderation played out.<\/p>\n

Related topics:<\/p>\n

\nBitcoin Cash and SegWit forks<\/h3>\n
\nThere is no denying it – the last year was largely shaped by the two most divisive forks in Bitcoin history – the Bitcoin Cash<\/a> hard fork and the SegWit<\/a> soft fork. Both were a culmination of years of the scaling debate buildup<\/a>. While some believed only one of those forks would survive in the long term, by now it is safe to say – BTC and BCH are both here to stay and the community will be forever divided on this matter.<\/div>\n

\nThat is not to say, however, that the subreddit moderators are the only ones to blame. There are a number of other key actors at play here, but who you point fingers at depends on what you want to believe. So here are some possible reasons the forks did play out the way they did.<\/p>\n

\nPotential reasons for the split<\/h3>\n
\nFirst, there is the Covert Asicboost<\/a>. With Bitmain earning $4B in profits last year<\/a>, there is clearly a lot of money on the line. If you believe Bitmain might’ve been using Covert Asicboost<\/a>\u00a0in their miners, it would’ve meant they were in danger of losing a lot of revenue in the SegWit fork, meaning they had a large incentive to create the fork that would preserve their advantage. Even a marginal increase in the amount of coins they could’ve generated would mean earning potentially millions more.<\/div>\n
\nThirdly, there are always people wanting to make some money opportunistically. Just like with the Ethereum Classic fork, there is some non-zero value to be extracted from the shared chain history<\/a>. Ramp up the hype, the FUD, roll our some celebrity voices and you will inevitably end up with more money down the line than what you started with, especially if you have a lot of BTC to begin with.<\/div>\n
\nLastly, there are some people in every community that either want adulation, or want to be seen as the smartest, most important people doing the right thing. They are unwilling to compromise, and if they can get their way, they might just seize the opportunity. You can see them on both sides of the forks now, often talking the loudest and making the boldest statements. Claiming they are the ones chosen to fulfil the vision of Satoshi<\/a>, that the other side is corrupt and clearly in the wrong.<\/div>\n

\nSo what has caused and aggravated the divide? Probably everything mentioned above to one extent or another. Some aspects of the forks were motivated by devs doing their honest best job to make Bitcoin better, some were probably motivated by the money to be made from either of the two solutions. The divide was then probably widened and further aggravated by people wanting to make money on it (perhaps buying up coins from people leaving one side of the fork before promoting that coin into new heights with a new wave of vocal supporters). Then seeing that neither side of the fork will clearly kill off the other, a tribalism equilibrium would be reached:<\/p>\n

\n