Bitcoin’s Biggest Names Come Together Warning of 'Contentious Hard-Forks'
Some of the biggest names in Bitcoin united in a written letter of consensus on Bitcoin’s future this week, signaling a desire to “chart an effective path” on block size reform while warning of “dangerous” hard-forks without “widespread consensus.”
Also read: Bitcoin nodes surge following beta 2 release
‘An Inclusive Roadmap’
The year-long debate on how to expand Bitcoin’s transaction handling capacity has drawn in figures from across the sphere, from core developers to third party businesses, community pundits and individual users. Ideas and reactions have been mixed, including their two major outcomes – the experimental blockchains Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited.
In a post published by Bitcoin Roundtable on Medium today, the heads of a number of major corporate players voiced the need to find a mutually beneficial solution, while warning against snap support of “contentious hard-forks.”
“There is a pressing need for an inclusive roadmap that takes into account the needs of businesses and all stakeholders,” the post begins. “As a community of bitcoin businesses, exchanges, wallets, miners, and mining pools, we have come together […] to resolve this challenge and […] guide the larger community as we move forward together.”
The five-point post is signed by BitFury, Genesis Mining, Spondoolies Tech, BTCC, Bitfinex, and Litecoin creator Charlie Lee, among others. The group principally advocates the use of so-called Segregated Witness (known as SegWit) transaction alteration, which would remove some of the data from each transaction in order to accommodate up to 47% more transactions per block. The post continues:
SegWit is almost ready and we support its deployment as a step in scaling.
Hard-Forks: Danger without Consensus
While not actively criticizing the Bitcoin Classic and Unlimited forks, the group raises concerns about opinions being formed lightly, urging users to “act rationally” and “hold off on making any decision.”
“The deployment of hard-forks without widespread consensus is dangerous and has the potential to cause trust and monetary losses,” it adds.
Worries about the effects of opting for one solution in haste have been repeated elsewhere, including Forbes and on Reddit, where users noted the possibility, albeit temporary, for fraudulent doubling or “tainting” of coins to be achieved should both Bitcoin split into two blockchains operating at once.
Nonetheless, the group uses the post as an opportunity to reiterate the need for cooperation throughout the Bitcoin sphere if the issue of block size – and, by definition, Bitcoin’s stability as a day-to-day method of exchange – are to be preserved.
“Our shared goal is the success of bitcoin. Bitcoin is strong and transformational,” the post sums up. “By working together, we will ensure that its future is bright.”
Bitcoin Classic, meanwhile, received its second beta release last week. While core developers stated the current implementation is a “test” and “not designed for mining,” a surge in nodes was nonetheless witnessed following the binaries on GitHub.
Have you tried Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin Unlimited? How do you see the future of Bitcoin’s commercial viability? Get involved in the comments section below!
Images courtesy of coin-network.com, ackertadvisory.com