Peter R. Rizun tried to encourage Gavin Andresen to shut down the Bitcoin Github repository. You would not expect this off the wall request from the Editor of a peer reviewed journal (even a brand new one.)
The Bitcoin Core Capacity Increases FAQ just came out.
Quite a few developers and others have signed it and there seems a concerted effort on the part of some to push it through. However, some of the main developers (including, among others Gavin, Hearn, Garzik, Emin Gün Sirer (Cornell professor and distributed systems expert) , and Dr Peter R. Rizun (co-managing editor at Ledger)) haven't signed on to it yet.
Where does it leave the rest of us? And is this a kind of plan that wallets, exchanges and payment processors will sign up to and get behind? (I hope not.)
IMHO it seems the best way forward is to plan a hard fork with the economic majority. Say, after block ## number we pledge to only make and accept BIP 101 blocks or Bitcoin unlimited blocks. If we fork with the economic majority miners will eventually sign up to the new fork and our hashing power will return and surpass our original hashing power. The economic majority can help field nodes and miners to provide security for the block until enough miners switch over.
Time is pretty much up. Discussion has gone on for over a year and Blockstream affiliated developers have finally made their plans crystal clear. Blocks area already filling up precariously. (Quite a few 900k blocks in the last few hours.)
If we want bitcoin to be used as a regular currency with apps such as purse.io, foldapp, and open bazaar, we all as a community will have to take action soon.
Some are suggesting Gavin close down the original github repository so that both the blockstream core and the unlimited or bip 101 core can start on an equal footing. Regardless if that happens or not, we'll have a couple rocky months ahead of us.
I fully agree. I completely understand the support for raising the max block size now by BIP101/XT or 2-4-8, but that hasn't been able to gain consensus. I have not seen any convincing objections to the SegWit soft fork scalability roadmap recently published; all I see is a lot of personal animosity toward certain influential people on the other side of the debate and emotional attachment to a preferred solution that seems to have near zero chance of being accepted (miners especially will never support a contentious hard fork).
The Capacity Increases FAQ is well written with a reasonable timetable. SegWit is tentatively scheduled to be deployed April 2016. Like it or not, Bitcoin XT had a chance, was not widely accepted and it is now time to move on with SegWit.
Return to “Bitcoin Discussion”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests