You may have heard recently about a Bitcoin fork may happen and some exchanges may start listing two coins BTC and BTU. There is really a war going on inside the Bitcoin world at the moment with both sides Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin Core believing they are doing the good for Bitcoin. Specifically, the war originated by people trying to include more transactions in one block, thus allow more transactions to be confirmed per a period of time. If you experienced an annoying delay that your Bitcoin transaction not confirmed in time, then this war is people declaring different ways to solve that problem. In our world, there will be only one Bitcoin, the Bitcoin that majority of Traders and miners will continue to agree on. As we have mentioned earlier, there was an announcement of 20 exchanges considering listing both BTC and BTU as separated coins had a hardfork happen. We find this idea make no sense and we won’t go in that direction. Talking technically, listing both BTC and BTU (like the 20 exchanges proposed) is terrible idea, it doesn’t align correctly with the nature of Bitcoin. After the hard fork, transactions will continue to be confirmed on both chains. A coin that listed as BTC may very well spent on the BU chain and the coin listed at BTU may very well spent on the BC chain. So what are investors exchanging for then? Very confusing, right? Right from the beginning, Bitcoin has been based on Proof Of Work concept. As long as the majority of network use its hash power to confirm transactions and produce blocks, with whatever format they agreed on, then that should be considered valid and that is Bitcoin. This is why Remitano declared that in our world, there will be only one Bitcoin — the Bitcoin that majority of miners will continue to confirm, regardless whether it is Bitcoin Unlimited or Bitcoin Core. If a side produce the longest chain, we follow them. Currently two sides proposed different approaches: The Bitcoin Unlimited approach: Remove the limit from the Bitcoin protocol and let the miners choose the correct block size based on the number of transactions and the network condition. Technically this would allow 10 times or 20 times or more the current throughput as long as network is fast enough to transfer the block. We find this idea simple yet brilliant. Network is getting faster and storage is getting cheaper every year, remove the limit once and you are settled for the rest of life. In the software world, simple solution usually the most effective because it’s easier to implement and has fewer bugs to catch. The Bitcoin Core approach: SegWit - Introduced an extended block that contains transactions signature so the original block can be lighter. This would double the number of transactions in the original block. We find this idea tricky, it’s like a hack against Bitcoin. The introduction of new extended block make the protocol more complicated for quite a humble gain compared to the approach of Bitcoin Unlimited. In the end, one side needs to win to avoid the mess. The longer they stay on this war, the messier things will be. We are in favor of Bitcoin Unlimited but we would be glad to follow had Bitcoin Core become the winner. What we really don’t want to see is the mess of exchanges start listing both BTC and BTU had the hard fork become a reality. Recent statistic from pool of miners has signify that Bitcoin Unlimited nodes are getting more traction (over 50%). This gives us affirmation that Bitcoin Unlimited will likely to be the winner. NOTE: Forwarded as shared!!