Looks like there were some. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15907735
>How much daily volume is it currently supporting?
Doesn't matter. Any other coin can support the same daily volume (and many others usually do)
>How does the velocity of the codebase compare to other coins?
Terrible. Constant in-fighting. This is what is hurting bitcoin right now.
Edit: added hard forks link.
Anyone who's paying attention to the bitcoin repo can see your statement has no basis in reality. For instance, compare the number of closed pull requests between btc/eth/ltc...and bch if you want a good laugh.
There was an unintentional fork on March 12, 2013 caused by previously disallowed number of tx inputs (?) as resolved by [BIP50][1].
[0]: https://blog.blockchain.com/2016/02/26/a-brief-history-of-bi... [1]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawi...
Likewise in the second case, where there was a temporary soft-fork put in place to limit the block size so as to not run afoul of the bug, which itself wasn't a hard-fork or a soft-fork but rather a probabilistic failure to achieve consensus under transient circumstances.
I think the point was about vulnerability + hard-fork due to disagreement a la Ethereum Classic
(for varying degrees of support where without a transaction fee of ~$5-20, your transaction may be silently dropped, and even without may require multiple hours for confirmation)
specifically, after 72 hours if it's not confirmed. but your wallet will continually rebroadcast the transaction, so it's not a hard limit.
Lightning network looks like it can do something, but the slow progress even with the current situation makes me question the future of Bitcoin.
This is the problem though. People are buying it for the price increase, rather than technical merit. It will eventually result in some middle aged couple who took out a mortgage holding the bag when it comes crashing down (if it does. If it doesn't, that's even scarier because that tells us how uninformed most people are.)
What legitimacy? It's all code. Any smart person will take something for it's technical merit. Good developers will eventually move.
>why not standardize on the one currency that has achieved the most adoption?
And where did that get us? A currency which isn't usable for daily transactions. And people give that "Oh it isn't meant for that, use Litecoin" comment. So why do we even quote adoption?
Even then, when a transaction takes $25+ dollars, you realize that there's something wrong.