[ad_1]
Why Bitcoin Cash will overcome misunderstandings among the major mining factions
Since its creation in recent years, Bitcoin Cash (BCH) has been under the spotlight on many occasions. His imminent "rupture" that has been reported by mainstream media is perhaps his most significant news to date. However, the media are completely wrong, as the upcoming project is in reality a consensus search mechanism that will result in an electoral process. In this case, a single CPU will represent a single vote, which means that more hashing power translates into more votes. This is in line with the consensus mechanism embedded in the Bitcoin network, and is similar to the description provided on Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin white paper.
Although unknown to many, the implementation of new mining software with new methods of consent is essentially a change of vote. Often, these transition processes are smooth because the average miners follow the position of industry leaders.
As expected, some participants expressed their disagreement with the definition of consent as outlined in the white paper, stating that it is not exclusively as stated in the documentation. To support their thesis, they referred to the rigid fork Monero, which caused a massive reduction in hashing power with the goal of reducing the influence of ASIC miners. While the hashing power has been lowered, this method is not entirely applicable to the Bitcoin network. This is because Monero is a centralized cryptocurrency, which means that it is completely controlled by its development team. Moreover, if Bitcoin opts to abandon its Proof-of-Work mechanism for the Monero way, it would mean destiny for its entire mining community.
For their part, the BCH miners adopted contradictory positions on the proposed changes. ViaBTC and Bitmain are in support, while nChain and CoinGeek are on the opposite side. Among the suggested changes, the most controversial is the Canonical Transaction Ordering (CTO). CTO is labeled as controversial due to the potential disturbance it might cause among members of the BCH mining fraternity. Amaury Sechet, a developer of Bitcoin ABC, said that the actions will certainly be irritating, even if the current situation requires immediate implementation.
In line with Amaury's prediction, CoinGeek and nChain vehemently opposed the suggested changes. As a result, this led to the creation of a new Bitcoin client, known as Bitcoin SV (SV stands for Satoshi & # 39; s Vision). The client is currently undergoing testing and should enter service in September, with the aim of seeing the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto.
Obviously, CoinGeek and nChain have irreconcilable differences with Bitcoin ABC. After the implementation of the changes, it will be the first time since the start of Bitcoin that the consent of Nakamoto will decide between two sects that have different perspectives. Although many blame the two companies mentioned above for the division between the BCH miners, it is worth noting that Bitcoin ABC also recognized the litigation of the issue.
Most of the encrypted investors are usually calm when everything goes right. Thus, the introduction of proposals that interrupt normality usually stimulates substantial opposition. Regardless of the goal of change, the answer is usually hostile. As a result, such suggestions usually take a long time to be accepted, controlled, tested and finally implemented.
The challenge faced by the CTO is its novelty for the BCH community, which according to Amaury knows the payment method 0-Conf. Basically, CTO will change 0-Conf, a process that will require an update of the entire ecosystem's software infrastructure. Since these changes are argumentative, the rapid spread of the CTO can be questioned. After all, it would have been better if a version of Testnet had been released so that key stakeholders had time to evaluate and accept the solution.
Previously, Dr. Wright of nChain said that CTO will be beneficial to Wormhole, the developed tokenization solution of Bitmain. This statement caused a sensation in the BCH community, mainly because Wormhole, an Omni Layer fork solution (layer 2 technology), is not compatible with 0-Conf. Instead, this level 2 application emphasizes the order of transactions and the need for confirmation. Therefore, it is evident that CTO will be significantly advantageous for the Wormhole project.
In addition, Bitmain could possibly resort to reducing blocking times, a factor that will further improve Wormhole. Nonetheless, Bitcoin ABC did not include such a proposal in the upcoming fork expected in November of this year. On the contrary, supporters of this change, Bitmain and ViaBTC, have already tweeted the support for the inclusion of these changes on the upcoming BCH fork. In particular, this was done before assessing the reaction of the BCH community to this subject.
The prospect of changing the functionality of the Bitcoin network to host a level 2 project is not something the BCH community appreciates. The dynamics of the Wormhole and its potential impact on the economy of Bitcoin further strengthen the contentiousness of this matter. To extract 100 Cash Wormhole tokens, investors must burn 1 BCH. In the event that the value of Wormhole Cash exceeds that of BCH, the latter should burn in large volumes, a result that is calamitous.
However, if the intention of ViaBTC and Bitmain is to regulate the Bitcoin network to function smoothly with Wormhole, then they have the right to vote for such changes because they are miners. As for the Bitcoin whitepaper, every CPU in the network has only one vote. Therefore, Bitmain can vote because it has the power of hashing. Likewise, CoinGeek and nChain are equally right to oppose the suggested adjustments. These two have sworn to maintain their opposite position, proposing instead an increase in the capacity of the block to 128 MB.
The biggest shortcoming of the imminent consensus is the short time given to the BCH community to internalize the underlying concept. As mentioned earlier, Bitmain and Bitcoin ABC should have released a Testnet version of the same so that the community could evaluate its alleged advantages. The rush to implement the changes has instead raised suspicion about his intentions. While CTO had entered the fray in June 2018, Amaury indicated that Bitcoin ABC had a plan at the beginning of the project. Surprisingly, ABC is reluctant to adjust the size of the block during consensus launch, but one of the supposed benefits of the CTO is to allow Bitcoin to process large blocks efficiently. Concerns around the CTO have been greatly improved after the publication of a contrary document called "A motivated critique of the whitepaper" Canonical Transaction Ordering For Bitcoin ", written by Joannes Vermoreletal." In response, Peter Rizun, chief scientist at Bitcoin Unlimited, urged the community to wait for the CTO to be launched before being critical.
Apparently, the deliberate slowness in resizing the Bitcoin Core (BTC) had several negative effects on Bitcoin Cash. The developer community is obsessed with resolving scalability issues, with the result of tackling any plausible function as a solution to this threat. Furthermore, the plan to conduct a hard gallows every six months fails miserably, even though its initial intentions were good. Rather, it has led to the creation of numerous useless applications that magnify the network, as well as more complicated to me.
After the initial hard fork of the Bitcoin blockchain, the main goal of the resulting BCH network was to restore the block size to that of Satoshi Nakamoto, the author of the Bitcoin whitepaper. So, support for this mission was unanimous. However, the proposal to deviate from that initial course led to the division of opinions. Although this (rejection of proposals) may seem overly conservative, Satoshi's vision has demonstrated throughout the decade that Bitcoin has existed. Therefore, additional features must be severely tested and tested before being approved for distribution. Simply put, Bitcoin is not a platform for testing developers' ideas. In fact, BTC's main objective was to provide a transparent, decentralized and reliable alternative to legal currencies.
In order to encourage corporate institutions and key investors to invest their wealth in the BCH blockchain, it is imperative to demonstrate the stability of the network. Putting this in perspective, Vitalik Buterin abandoned the Bitcoin platform as a basis for its Ethereum blockchain because BTC core developers tampered with its creation, making the network an inescapable option. If Vitalik had built Ethereum on Bitcoin, the value of Bitcoin would have been immense; even its use would have increased considerably.
Nowadays, companies that are trying to exploit distributed ledger technology favor the creation of their own private blockchains from scratch. The preference of private blockchain on public networks is due to the control over the protocol available for private blockchains. Therefore, these companies believe that their inability to control the public blockchain protocol can make their data vulnerable because the changes are implemented without proper notice. This perceived risk must be abolished to favor the adoption of public blockchains.
CoinGeek and nChain are advocating blocking a protocol, even if similar calls have failed incredibly recently. Blocking a protocol does not prevent future adjustments, as this would prevent productivity. This means that changes to the network must be crucial and auspicious and can only be implemented after passing tests and evaluations. Furthermore, downward blocking will move development towards creating applications on the blockchain network. Despite the name, the block does not "block" the protocol. To this end, miners will still have the power to propose and vote for changes on the blockchain network.
As of now, the division of the BCH network seems more unlikely, since both sides of the division are fighting for a single entity: the BCH blockchain. This battle is countering two parts that have greatly contributed to the development of the Bitcoin Cash community against each other. Although painful, its occurrence has been inevitable, and one can bet it will happen again in the future. Alternatively, investors will have a direct experience of a great hashing power war, the first of this greatness.
[ad_2]Source link
