Slashdot Mirror
Bitcoin Fork Divides Community
HughPickens.com writes: The Bitcoin community is facing one of the most momentous decisions in its six-year history. The Bitcoin network is running out of spare capacity, and two increasingly divided camps disagree about what, if anything, to do about the problem. The technical issue is that a block, containing a record of recent transactions, currently has a 1MB limit. Increasing the block size would allow more transactions on the network at once, helping it to scale up to meet growing demand. But it would also make it more difficult for ordinary users to host full network "nodes" that validate new transactions on the network, potentially making the digital currency more centralized as a result. Now Rob Price writes that two high-profile developers have released a competing version of the codebase that risks splitting the digital currency in two.
Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn have released Bitcoin XT, an alternative version of the core software that supports increasing the block size when required. Bitcoin users will now be forced to decide between "Bitcoin Core" and Bitcoin XT, raising the prospect of a "fork," where the digital currency divides into two competing versions. According to Price, Core and XT are compatible right now. However, if XT is adopted by 75% of users by January 2016, it will upgrade to a larger block size that will be incompatible with Core — meaning that if the other 25% don't then choose to convert, it will effectively split the currency into two. So far, 7.7% of the network has adopted XT, according to website XTnodes.com. "Ultimately, how the dispute is resolved may matter more than the specific decision that's reached," says Timothy B. Lee. "If the community is ultimately able to reach a consensus, the process could become a template for resolving future disagreements. On the other hand, if disagreements fester for months — or, worse, if a controversial software change splits the Bitcoin network into two warring camps — it could do real damage to Bitcoin's reputation."
Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn have released Bitcoin XT, an alternative version of the core software that supports increasing the block size when required. Bitcoin users will now be forced to decide between "Bitcoin Core" and Bitcoin XT, raising the prospect of a "fork," where the digital currency divides into two competing versions. According to Price, Core and XT are compatible right now. However, if XT is adopted by 75% of users by January 2016, it will upgrade to a larger block size that will be incompatible with Core — meaning that if the other 25% don't then choose to convert, it will effectively split the currency into two. So far, 7.7% of the network has adopted XT, according to website XTnodes.com. "Ultimately, how the dispute is resolved may matter more than the specific decision that's reached," says Timothy B. Lee. "If the community is ultimately able to reach a consensus, the process could become a template for resolving future disagreements. On the other hand, if disagreements fester for months — or, worse, if a controversial software change splits the Bitcoin network into two warring camps — it could do real damage to Bitcoin's reputation."
...and two increasingly divided camps disagree about what, if anything, to do about the problem.
Any bitcoiner worth his salt will tell you that any problem will be taken care of by the market!
There wasn't much left of a reputation before this new crisis...
This Week In Dunning-Kruggerands
One thing I don't understand about this, and that the articles never cover, is how much of a problem it is that the current block size is limited to 1MB in "core" Bitcoin. Is the situation that the Bitcoin network is coming dangerously close to having enough transactions to exceed that 1MB limit? Is it that Bitcoin has a problem like IPv4, where it has a set date at which it will likely exceed that 1MB limit and start having issues?
I would think that there must be some sort of issue, but then again it seems like the people behind Bitcoin XT stand to make a lot of money if the big Bitcoin exchanges switch over to their version of the currency, so I'm not so sure.
Yeah, but which one? Me, I'll wait for Bitcoin AT.
" Bitcoin's reputation is fucking awful as a scammers paradise."
Which can only be true if Bitcoin serves its intended purpose as a useful store of value. If Bitcoin didn't do that, there would be no ability to use it to scam.
Why aren't you claiming that dollars have an even worse reputation because they're involved in even more scams? Are you insane, or do you refuse to touch US currency?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
The US Currency scams don't cause the value of US currency to swing wildly.
For a lot of people to adopt Bitcoin as a currency, they will need to see the value of a bitcoin stabilize and not swing around wildly.
That's right. All the people 'investing' in Bitcoins need to stop getting a return. The things need to be passed around, not speculated in.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"The US Currency scams don't cause the value of US currency to swing wildly."
Value in comparison to what, exactly? Where is your proof that Bitcoin scams cause its value to "swing wildly?"
Do you not consider the economic events circa 2008 to be the result of scams related to US dollars? Why don't you consider the current US Federal Reserve policy of printing money in order to prop up the economy to be a scam?
Bitcoin has been more stable than multiple national currencies (Venezuela being only a recent example).
Rather than making unsupported blanket claims, perhaps you should focus on documented facts.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
You might want to use AssCoins, they were created exactly for that purpose.
People who received a play-money system from a mysterious unknown person and actually convinced themselves that it has value are now facing a schism over the money market failing to grow without bounds. Unless, that is, the software is modified in a way that might, over time, disincent people from playing the game.
I can't be the only one who is thinking that the only problem is that these folks believe bitcoins have value.
Hell, I thought that the fiat currency of nations was a bad deal. This is an order of magnitude worse.
Bruce Perens.
US crica 2008 was a disasterous crash. Yet it was less of a drop/fluxuation than what occurs daily for bitcoin
Each transaction has a few KB worth of data.
You make a transaction of say 0.5 btc to an address. In a few seconds all nodes know about it, but it is not validated until it finds its way into a block
Miners choose a few of the unvalidated transactions to form a block and perform all the math needed to get a hash with the desirable characteristics (I wont expand on this here)
They are more likely to choose transactions that pay the fee (which is optional and can vary in generosity)
A new block is added to the blockchan network from the competing miners (whoever get the right hash faster). The difficulty of the right hash is adjusted every two weeks so that on average that happens every ten minutes
I had to say all that to explain the 1MB size. The way thigs are now, 1MB block size allows for about 7 transactions per second, so about 4200 per ten minute block. The size of the bitcoin quantities moved matters but does so relatively little so small transactions have relatively high cost in bandwidth (and bandwidth is what you pay for)
So imagine each block as a 4200 passenger seat train or plane. Thousands of passengers are waiting to get a seat. Some might get the next plane, other might get the next one or the one after. Naturaly, those that pay more will be guaranteed a seat while the freeloaders will be defered to the next one. As more candidate transactions appear all the time and paying ones get prioritized by the miners, some free or cheap ones will never get through and if a transaction doesnt get through in 48 hours (I think) it is simply dropped from the network like it never occured at all
So if nothing changes, people will simply avoid making pointless transactions of a few cents worth because the fees required to make them validated will not be worth it.
If the block size increases, fees might not have to but the blockchain will continue to get bloated and so will bandwidth costs for nodes.
I prefer the former. We can always use other coins for small transactions and keep btc as the standard for longer term store of value
Bit coin has quite a bit of that [hard coded limits] in the original protocol to be honest. Like no ability to do anything faster, no able to handle even a small percentage of what paypal/visa/mastercard handles per second. It was an experiment that worked too well and now they are stuck with something that wasn't quite fully thought through.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?