It has come time where the Bitcoin Cash community is now on the cusp of its first test of Nakamoto consensus. For those of you who don't know Nakamoto consensus is the term used to describe the way of deciding which fork chain in case of a competing one, wins out. This is simply a matter of which one is longer, or contains the most proof of work. The first hard fork which broke BCH away from BTC, Nakamoto consensus was not allowed to occur because simply the communities did not want consensus. They wanted to split away. However, since that first "Independance fork" there has been a subsequent upgrade hard fork in May of 2018 which executed without any fanfare or drama. That was because there was developer consensus on what was going to be in the upgrade. However, this November will be different. This November will be the first hard fork upgrade in which the developer groups are not in agreement with what should be in the upgrade, and thus, this will be the first contentious upgrade. (note, not a contentious FORK, which is a splitting of the chain) This contentious upgrade will mean that the clients will start gathering support leading up to the upgrade flag date, and hopefully a majority will form around one client or the other. And if that does not happen, on the fork date, there will be a temporary 'hash vote' where the side which has the most hashpower will run the longest chain, and the minority chain will suffer delayed confirmations, which should presumably incentivize miners and businesses on the minority fork to upgrade to join the majority.
This is how Nakamoto consensus works, and we have not seen it happen in reality yet. To this date NC is still just a theoretical process, as it has yet to be tested on a contentious upgrade where the majority chain may try to deliberately prevent the minority chain from persisting. This is capitalist competition in its most raw form, more pure, and most fair.
The contenders are already preparing for the 'election' date. And like American election campaigns, the media war is starting already. The contenders are:
Bitcoin ABC: the client that gave birth to the independence fork, started as a fork of Bitcoin Core client with an adjustable block cap. They are proposing to put in some experimental features which may have some possible future scaling potentials, but strangely are holding off on upping the hard cap limit default of 32mb. They want to also add a new opcode DSV which has some potential uses in oracles and supporting 2nd layer token networks.
Bitcoin Unlimited: The original 'big block' client, at one point had 38% support of hashpower and almost defeated Segwit, before a series careless bugs and the New York Agreement for Segwit2x eroded all the hashpower support for the 'segwit blockers'. They currently are aiming to support both ABC and SV feature sets as a configurable setting, ideal for neutrals
Bitcoin SV: the new kid on the block, whose goals are to bring Bitcoin back to the original working economic model, and prioritizes proven scaling methods over new features or experimental ones. They set the hard cap limit to 128mb, and also add back the remainder of the original Bitcoin basic opcodes.
If you own hashpower, it would be in your best interests to research which one you support and make sure you run that client starting the month before the fork day (October).
If you want to know my personal opinion, click through the paywall.
 

$5.50
$1.05

Reviews
15 of 15 reviewers say it's worth paying for

0 of 15 reviewers say it's not worth paying for
Comments
  earned 0.0¢
keep telling yourself that.
0.0¢
   3wk ago
  earned 0.0¢
Gave you some stress test tips😎
0.0¢
   3wk ago
  earned 0.0¢
"If you are a merchant I would recommend running Bitcoin Unlimited as you can switch the compatibility to be ABC or SV mode, so if you see the vote swinging to one direction you should switch to support the majority side if you don't want to have any disruptions to your business or exchange."
Well spoken.
0.0¢
   3wk ago
  earned 25.0¢
Great point in the paid section, I didn't think incentives could be screwed up as well that way, but I see what you mean and I tend to agree with you.
25.0¢
   3wk ago
25.0¢
  earned 0.0¢
If you are a mining pool you should either run the client whose ideology you support (ABC or SV) or run both so that you can offer the choice to your hash clients. ... If you do not upgrade to the majority side then you may lose money in orphaned blocks.
Yes. I hope pools get better at dealing with these situations too.

0.0¢
   3wk ago
  earned 0.0¢
As long as it does in fact come down to hash power and not Amaury and Coinex trying to just change the name and slap the "bch" ticker on his minPOW chain. Cannot believe they have both stated they would do so... At least it sounds like every other normal exchange would follow the longest chain with most POW. The honourable way. Nakamoto consensus like men!
0.0¢
   3wk ago