<p>Yes, Bitcoin could also be subjected to a hardfork. In fact, there are members of the Bitcoin community that feel so strongly that the blocksize should be increased that they are proposing to do just that:<br>
They are working on a version of Bitcoin that is incompatible in regard to the current consensus rules of Bitcoin forcing a permanent split of the blockchain into two. They surmise that their vision for Bitcoin will have greater support than the road map followed by the Bitcoin Core developers and expect to oust the original chain completely.</p>

<p>As they (IMHO) appear to overestimate the support for their project, I don't expect the latter to come to pass.</p>

<p>As Mindwin has pointed out in the comment rightly so, the Bitcoin blockchain has actually forked before by accident: See <a href="/questions/tagged/march-2013-fork" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;march-2013-fork&#39;" rel="tag">march-2013-fork</a>, or <a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/march-2013-fork">Bitcoin Magazine's report</a>.<br>
There have also been previous forking attempts, such as the ones pushed for by Bitcoin-XT and Bitcoin Classic.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-26T19:59:00.160Z
Regarding forks, It has [(1)](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/3668/bitcoin-network-shaken-by-blockchain-fork/) already happened [(2)](https://blog.cex.io/bitcoin-dictionary/what-is-bitcoin-fork-14622) in the past.
Mindwin Remember Monica
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-26T20:06:28.803Z
@Mindwin: Good point, I've updated my answer
Murch
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-27T10:41:52.837Z
Be my guest, glad it was useful.
Mindwin Remember Monica
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-26T17:05:59.133Z
2016-10-26T20:06:12.027Z
2017-04-13T12:47:36.647Z
Murch
<p>Some background (Taken from <a href="http://qz.com/730004/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ethereum-hard-fork/" rel="nofollow">Quartz</a>):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Ethereum is similar to bitcoin, but it also supports smart contracts,
  agreements written in computer code that execute automatically when
  conditions are met.</p>
  
  <p>Distributed Autonomous Organization (DAO) sought to build a humanless
  venture capital firm that would allow the investors to make all the
  decisions through smart contracts. It was one of the biggest
  crowdfunding effort in history. For Ethereum, the backbone of the
  project, it was a major vote of confidence in its nascent technology.</p>
  
  <p>Then it got hacked, when someone started siphoning money out of the
  DAO. By the end, the hacker, who has said that he was simply taking
  advantage of a technical loophole in the DAO, had amassed $50 million
  in ether, based on current exchange rates at the time. While the core
  developers who designed and run Ethereum didn’t really have anything
  to do with the DAO, they were left to deal with the mess, so they
  decided to hack the hacker.</p>
  
  <p>They managed to stop the theft and move the funds into another smart
  contract where they currently sit: a temporary fix. The way the code
  of DAO was written, there is a question of whether the original hacker
  can still lay claim to the funds. Fixing this would require more
  intervention from the core developers.</p>
  
  <p>Whether to do so has created an existential question for Ethereum. One
  of its underlying tenets is that it’s a decentralized platform,
  meaning the power lies almost exclusively with all of its users. By
  stepping in to fix this problem, it would completely undermine that
  objective. This has led to a heated debate between those who want to
  return the funds and others who say that the the power of smart
  contracts lies in their immutability.</p>
  
  <p>Doing so would basically eliminate the DAO, and move all the money
  into a smart contract that can only reimburse investors. The initial
  proposal was a soft fork where a majority of the Ethereum miners could
  voting on the roll back. Unfortunately, a security flaw was found in
  the voting process, which eliminated this option.</p>
  
  <p>That leaves a hard fork, where the core developers of Ethereum
  unilaterally make the decision to essentially create a new version of
  the network with different rules than the original. Then, miners,
  exchanges, and other major apps that are built on it need to decide if
  they want to a part of the new version of Ethereum or the original.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-26T16:57:51.780Z
Could you put the part from Quartz in blockquotes?  It would make it easier to see which part is the article, and which is your question.
Jestin
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-26T17:00:15.473Z
There is only one question listed. What are the other questions you are referring to? All of the verbiage after the question is background, as stated prior to it, Everything after the colon is taken from Quartz, hence my notation.
user2716556
<blockchain><blockchain-fork><ethereum><smartcontracts>
Does bitcoin have the potential to be subject to a hard fork where miners are forced to choose which fork they will accept, like Etherum?
user2716556
# Does bitcoin have the potential to be subject to a hard fork where miners are forced to choose which fork they will accept, like Etherum?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-10-26)

Some background (Taken from [Quartz](http://qz.com/730004/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ethereum-hard-fork/)):

> Ethereum is similar to bitcoin, but it also supports smart contracts,
> agreements written in computer code that execute automatically when
> conditions are met.
>
> Distributed Autonomous Organization (DAO) sought to build a humanless
> venture capital firm that would allow the investors to make all the
> decisions through smart contracts. It was one of the biggest
> crowdfunding effort in history. For Ethereum, the backbone of the
> project, it was a major vote of confidence in its nascent technology.
>
> Then it got hacked, when someone started siphoning money out of the
> DAO. By the end, the hacker, who has said that he was simply taking
> advantage of a technical loophole in the DAO, had amassed $50 million
> in ether, based on current exchange rates at the time. While the core
> developers who designed and run Ethereum didn’t really have anything
> to do with the DAO, they were left to deal with the mess, so they
> decided to hack the hacker.
>
> They managed to stop the theft and move the funds into another smart
> contract where they currently sit: a temporary fix. The way the code
> of DAO was written, there is a question of whether the original hacker
> can still lay claim to the funds. Fixing this would require more
> intervention from the core developers.
>
> Whether to do so has created an existential question for Ethereum. One
> of its underlying tenets is that it’s a decentralized platform,
> meaning the power lies almost exclusively with all of its users. By
> stepping in to fix this problem, it would completely undermine that
> objective. This has led to a heated debate between those who want to
> return the funds and others who say that the the power of smart
> contracts lies in their immutability.
>
> Doing so would basically eliminate the DAO, and move all the money
> into a smart contract that can only reimburse investors. The initial
> proposal was a soft fork where a majority of the Ethereum miners could
> voting on the roll back. Unfortunately, a security flaw was found in
> the voting process, which eliminated this option.
>
> That leaves a hard fork, where the core developers of Ethereum
> unilaterally make the decision to essentially create a new version of
> the network with different rules than the original. Then, miners,
> exchanges, and other major apps that are built on it need to decide if
> they want to a part of the new version of Ethereum or the original.

**Tags:** blockchain, blockchain-fork, ethereum, smartcontracts

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Could you put the part from Quartz in blockquotes?  It would make it easier to see which part is the article, and which is your question.  
> **username_0**: There is only one question listed. What are the other questions you are referring to? All of the verbiage after the question is background, as stated prior to it, Everything after the colon is taken from Quartz, hence my notation.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2016-10-26. Score: 7 | Accepted answer

Yes, Bitcoin could also be subjected to a hardfork. In fact, there are members of the Bitcoin community that feel so strongly that the blocksize should be increased that they are proposing to do just that:  
They are working on a version of Bitcoin that is incompatible in regard to the current consensus rules of Bitcoin forcing a permanent split of the blockchain into two. They surmise that their vision for Bitcoin will have greater support than the road map followed by the Bitcoin Core developers and expect to oust the original chain completely.

As they (IMHO) appear to overestimate the support for their project, I don't expect the latter to come to pass.

As username_3 has pointed out in the comment rightly so, the Bitcoin blockchain has actually forked before by accident: See [march-2013-fork](/questions/tagged/march-2013-fork "show questions tagged 'march-2013-fork'"), or [Bitcoin Magazine's report](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/march-2013-fork).  
There have also been previous forking attempts, such as the ones pushed for by Bitcoin-XT and Bitcoin Classic.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: Regarding forks, It has [(1)](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/3668/bitcoin-network-shaken-by-blockchain-fork/) already happened [(2)](https://blog.cex.io/bitcoin-dictionary/what-is-bitcoin-fork-14622) in the past.  
> **username_2**: @username_3: Good point, I've updated my answer  
> **username_3**: Be my guest, glad it was useful.  

---

