Forking within the crypto ecosystem is often a controversial subject. Many crypto-enthusiasts\u00a0loathe it, taking particular exception to the so-called \u201ccontentious\u00a0hard fork.\u201d 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\u00a0burden. However, this view is limited and narrow-minded.\nAlso read:\u00a0Lawyers to Help the Russian Crypto Industry Deal With Inadequate Laws\nForking for Good, Forking for Bad\nContentious 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.\u00a0It is as much psychological as technological.\nVitalik Buterin, Ethereum\u2019s creator, agrees. In a cogent\u00a0article called \u201cHard Forks, Soft Forks, Defaults and Coercion,\u201d he said:\n\u201cProponents of hard forks are often derided as trying to effect a \u201chostile take over\u201d of a network, and \u201cforce\u201d users to go along with them. Additionally, the risk of chain splits is often used to bill hard forks as \u201cunsafe\u201d.\u00a0It is my personal viewpoint that these criticisms are wrong, and furthermore in many cases completely backwards.\u201d\n\u00a0Definition of a Cryptocurrency Fork\nA 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.\nIn 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.\nIn a Medium article called Blockchain Forks Explained, Nate Maddrey said, \u201cA blockchain fork is essentially a collectively agreed upon software update.\u201d\nMaddrey\u2019s definition concisely explains the technological fact of a fork, but as everyone knows, a blockchain \u201cupgrade\u201d is not always necessarily agreed upon. These \u201ccontentious hard forks\u201d often cause disputes. Matter of a fact, sometimes \u201cupgrades\u201d in the cryptocurrency space are seen as attacks or political maneuvers by others. This causes natural schisms to crop up.\nBitcoin Schisms and Reason for Division\nSome of these individuals go so far to suggest these \u201cattacks\u201d 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.\nLeading 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.\nThe 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\u2019s a paradigmatic-shifting technology. If it is just \u201cdigital gold,\u201d it\u2019s a money-making \u2014 or money-destroying \u2014 speculative asset.\nBitcoin Cash ABC and Bitcoin SV\nFast 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.\nThe differences were basically superficial. The Bitcoin Cash ABC camp has always intended to raise the blockchain size to meet market demand. It just wasn\u2019t 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 at all.\nAt the end of the day, the Bitcoin SV camp pivoted to fork Bitcoin Cash for political reasons, for the purposes of control and power. The beautiful thing about this split was it helped align incongruous ideologies, incentives, and personalities with their proper camps.\nCooperation Versus Forking Government\nWhen a cryptocurrency forks it means competing groups effectively cooperated to move in divergent directions. \u201cCooperation\u201d in this context may sound odd, seeing as how a lot of badmouthing and bickering ensued prior to the fork, but it was still a form of capitulation without violence. In my mind, this is synonymous with \u201ccooperation.\u201d\nAt conferences, I always ask the audience what would happen if they tried to fork the federal government. I usually hear crickets, then I respond: if someone disagrees with the U.S. government, they can\u2019t easily fork off. If they try, they would likely end up in a cage or shot in back of the head.\nIn this regard, it is impossible to disagree on fundamentals and create a coexisting but radically different government structure in society. Cryptocurrency blockchains, however, provide a novel remedy for that problem. They allow people to opt in or opt out. They also allow developers to change a given cryptocurrency\u2019s rule set at its core code, and then move it a different direction. This is a massive transformation in the way humankind has traditionally conducted governance affairs. Previously, people settled differences with the truncheon and gun.\nThe Psychology of Forks\nThe psychology of forking is straightforward. If groups have the ability to cooperate and disassociate via a hard fork, they can create nonviolent harmony in the system through exercising the ability to choose a particular blockchain.\nThis functions as a form of ventilation and release. It mitigates the necessity of violence. It lessens the charge of psychic activity that could lead to hostile escalations. At first, the bickering and badmouthing appears as a form of hostility, but it is just words. It\u2019s not akin to physically harming another person.\nThis move also limits the amount of corruption in the space. It allows bad actors to congeal around a certain set of ideals, effectively weeding them out. This never happens via traditional government, because all the players remain in power for years, compounding the corruption and exacerbating misaligned incentives. This is why being attentive to the utility and beauty of forking is of utmost importance.\nRejecting Government Violence\nIf the cryptocurrency community internalizes the psychological benefits of forking, all the actors involved will vie to fork when necessary. It\u2019s only when these actors turn to government \u2014 in the form of lawsuits and other litigation \u2014 that the sacred contract of peaceful forking is rejected and replaced with violence.\nForking is an amazing innovation not only in technology, but in human social affairs. It should not be taken lightly, but when initiated for the right reasons, be it due to opposing visions or irreconcilable differences, forking is a welcome divide that can leave both communities stronger and more focused once the dust has settled.\nDo you think crypto schisms and divisions are a good or bad thing? Does the psychology of forking make sense? Is it healthy to fork off peacefully\u00a0rather than violently?\u00a0\nImages courtesy of Shutterstock\nOP-ed disclaimer:\u00a0This is an Op-ed article. The opinions expressed in this article are the author\u2019s own. Bitcoin.com does not endorse nor support views, opinions or conclusions drawn in this post. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the Op-ed article. Readers should do their own due diligence before taking any actions related to the content. Bitcoin.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any information in this Op-ed article.\nThe post Crypto Schisms and Fork Psychology appeared first on Bitcoin News.