Bitcoin – Blocksize debate, the thousandth

4.11.2018 | 18:50

Since 2015, the blocksize debate about how to scale Bitcoin has been boiling up again and again. Despite the developers’ best efforts, this question remains the biggest challenge for Bitcoin’s further development.

Even now, one year after the first proposals in this direction, Miner are again in favour of increasing the block size. They hope that this will make Bitcoin fit for more transactions and a larger number of users. The Bitcoin core developers, on the other hand, focus on optimizations through top-level protocols. In their opinion, this is the safest way forward.

But what is a Bitcoin loophole?

On the one hand, Segregated Witness has been released as a solution to solve the Bitcoin loophole problem. In addition, a new mining pool (ViaBTC) and Roger Ver himself have begun using Bitcoin loophole software that can handle larger blocks.

With this not-small Miner, the party that advocates large blocks has gained some weight and can block segregated witness if necessary. They might even become powerful enough to go for a fork.

David A Johnston is Chairman of the board of the Factom Foundation. In his opinion, a fork is inevitable after these events. In several blog posts he emphasizes that the two camps in the Bitcoin community now have different goals and should therefore operate in two separate networks.

“After more than two years of fighting, the loss of time of one or two months due to a fork is a small price to pay: the development of both concepts could finally progress undisturbed.

Different visions on the news spy?

A new fork? Not everyone wants to go along with Johnson’s opinion: https://www.forexaktuell.com/en/the-news-spy-scam/. Critics say that such attempts by miners to force an increase in the news spy block size have so far failed. What should be different today?

“I don’t think it could come to such a fork. Yes, there is a very noisy group that makes its case. But it’s a tiny group whose arguments don’t have a realistic foundation,” says Coinkite CEO Rodolfo Novak.

Novak recalled that Bitcoin Unlimited resembles concepts such as Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Classic – both proposals hit the same notch in the blocksize increase. And where are they now?

All of these proposals have sparked discussion, but no one has managed to unite the 95% Hashrate on themselves, what needs to be achieved for an upgrade.

This time some observers see the chances for a fork a bit more realistic, as there was continued support for a blocksize increase from the Miner.

Stephen McKie is product manager at a bitcoin-based social platform called Yours. He pointed out that according to some news, the Segregated Witness and Lightning Network solutions preferred by the core developers are advancing, which would prevent a fork like the one above.

“With the advent of implementations similar to the Lightning Network, the blocksize debates could be silenced, so that everything would remain as it was in terms of scaling.”

Either way, Johnston thinks that the only sensible solution in this debate would be to split along different visions.

“It would be better than the endless arguments.”

From his point of view, the Ethereum split is a great example of a vision-based fork, as each group can now focus on its own.

BTCC CEO Samson Mow also said that ViaBTC and others could launch their own currency whenever they wanted.

“If someone really thinks that the block size is an obstacle to potential adoption and that this is the reason for high fees and unpredictable confirmation times, why shouldn’t they fork and solve all the problems?

Currently, however, both groups are economically tied to each other. Mow says that a hard fork would not only endanger Bitcoin’s future, but that of all those who support Bitcoin.

“A hard fork would cost billions of dollars, a price that people and companies who own Bitcoin would have to pay.

Comments are closed