Is It Too Late for Barry Silbert’s Scaling Compromise Proposal?

Is It Too Late for Barry Silbert’s Scaling Compromise Proposal?

7089
10
SHARE
Barry Silbert

According to a few public announcements, the Digital Currency Group’s founder Barry Silbert is trying to plan a scaling compromise that involves both Segregated Witness (Segwit) implementation and a block size increase of 2MB within the next twelve months.

Also read: Xapo Forwards Miner Fees to Users After a Grueling Two Weeks of Backlog    

DCG Founder Barry Silbert Sparks Another Compromise Discussion

Is It Too Late for Barry Silbert's Scaling Compromise Proposal?
Barry Silbert founder of the Digital Currency Group.

As the scaling debate continues, many bitcoin proponents are at odds trying to figure out the best solution at hand to scale the digital currency. On May 17 the founder and CEO of the Digital Currency Group (DCG), Barry Silbert, announced he was in favor of supporting immediate Segwit activation and a block size increase.

“I agree to immediately support the activation of Segregated Witness and commit to effectuate a block size increase to 2MB within 12 months,” explains Silbert.

Following the proclamation, Silbert announces that he’s also convinced a multitude of bitcoin businesses to agree with his latest statement. Silbert states via Twitter;

I’m pleased to share that over 50 bitcoin companies from ~20 countries have also signed on to support this compromise

Silbert Claims 78% of the Bitcoin Hashrate Supports His Compromise Proposal

The public statements caused a stir among members of the bitcoin community on both sides speaking about the topic on various social media channels and forums. Alongside this, a few luminaries and bitcoin-focused business owners from the industry also spoke in favor of Silbert’s statement.

“Myself and Shapeshift are among them—I cannot endorse this strongly enough,” exclaims the Shapeshift founder Erik Voorhees. Other members of the industry supported the statement like the co-founder of Satoshi Labs, Chandler Guo, and others.

To add more power to his words in addition to the fifty bitcoin companies agreeing with the DCG founder’s proclamation, Silbert details that miners are also onboard with his plan. A few hours later on May 17 Silbert announces;

We are now at 78.3% of the bitcoin hashrate in support of the scaling compromise

Compromise Discussion Causes Some Optimism, Stubbornness, and Confusion  

Many bitcoiners were relatively positive about Silbert’s efforts as talks of compromise has become more prevalent these days with the most recent transaction congestion taking place. Others from both sides of the debate completely dismissed the notion of a compromise. Some individuals said that people just need to concentrate on the User-Activated Soft Fork (UASF) instead of these meaningless talks. Meanwhile, big block supporters disagreed with an immediate activation of Segwit as they believed the other end of the deal would still not be fulfilled.

Another thing people discussed was the confusion between which Segwit plus 2MB plan was agreed upon. People have been confused on whether or not the plan was a rehash of the Hong Kong agreement in the past, or if the scheme involved Sergio De Lerner’s recent Segwit/2MB proposal.

Another Scaling Meeting Between Major Players

To add to the recent attempt at compromise a scaling meeting between members of the bitcoin industry is taking place before the Consensus conference in New York next week. According to Coindesk, a news publication owned by Silbert’s DCG firm, a private mailing list was set up to bolster a meeting between “major players” within the bitcoin ecosystem. Members asked to attend include Adam Back (Blockstream), Jeff Garzik (Bloq), Val Vavilov (Bitfury), Roger Ver (Bitcoin.com), Brian Armstrong (Coinbase), Jihan Wu (Bitmain), Stephen Pair (Bitpay), and others.

What do you think about Silbert’s attempt to create a scaling compromise? Do you think his efforts will help or do you think it’s just a waste of time? Let us know what you think in the comments below


Images via Shutterstock, and Twitter.


At News.Bitcoin.com all comments containing links are automatically held up for moderation in the Disqus system. That means an editor has to take a look at the comment to approve it. This is due to the many, repetitive, spam and scam links people post under our articles. We do not censor any comment content based on politics or personal opinions. So, please be patient. Your comment will be published.

  • MK

    It’ll never happen

    • Ricky Bickerton

      Too late, Dev’s were given the chance when they signed the HK agreement which they later ignored, thankfully segwit will not activate at this time, so we need to just move on with the inevitable. If segwit is needed in future then everyone will beg for its activation when it is needed.

  • MK

    Maybe segwit but no block increase

    • Joe Shmo

      That would be so great, then again, where would I go to profess all of my petty little viewpoints? I could think of some constructive things to say here but why bother. Everything sucks. Nothing ever works. Fuck it. I’m done. If anyone else has some negative bullshit to say I’d love to hear it.

  • Derrick Slopey

    Time to start talking about a UAHF?

    • Sean Michael

      Just for you. But I doubt you will read it and if you did, I doubt you would understand it.

      Why would anyone support “Seg-rip” and Core. It is a patented
      Core/Bitstream attempt at a Coup that spits in the face of Satoshi
      design as put forth in the Satoshi Papers. Raise the limit back to where
      it was before, what supposed to be a temporary solution to an immediate
      problem Circa: 2011, that no longer exist. Open source, distributed
      & non centralized does not allow for Core/Bitstream’s attempted
      Coup: patented, greed, control driven abomination. Don’t sell Bitcoin’s
      “soul” to the “devil”. If it were to come to pass, Bitcoin would fall
      prey to exactly what to Government controlled “Fiat” represents.

      • Derrick Slopey

        I think that seg-wit is a messy hack as a soft fork. I was kind of making a joke (a poor one I guess) because I don’t see anything getting done to solve the block size problems any time soon.

        “I would support a UAHF (User activated Hard Fork) to increase the block size.”

        I am well versed in both the technical side of bitcoin and the economic principals of bitcoin, but I don’t fault you for assuming that I have no idea, many on both sides of this issue don’t.

  • Jan Marek

    Well, I sold nearly 40 percent of my bitcoins, that I hold since 2011 and I suppose sell 10 percent more soon. I bought some LTC and XMR. It is time to go other way.

  • Sean Michael

    Why would anyone support “Seg-rip” and Core. It is a patented Core/Bitstream attempt at a Coup that spits in the face of Satoshi design as put forth in the Satoshi Papers. Raise the limit back to where it was before, what supposed to be a temporary solution to an immediate problem Circa: 2011, that no longer exist. Open source, distributed & non centralized does not allow for Core/Bitstream’s attempted Coup: patented, greed, control driven abomination. Don’t sell Bitcoin’s “soul” to the “devil”. If it were to come to pass, Bitcoin would fall prey to exactly what to Government controlled “Fiat” represents.

  • earonesty

    Segwit + bip103 would be fine. Few core devs would object to block growth following bandwidth increases, since they all already approved of it.