Slashdot Mirror
Why the Bitcoin Network Just Split In Half and Why It Matters (arstechnica.com)
In a report via Ars Technica, Timothy B. Lee explains why the Bitcoin network split into two and why it matters: On Tuesday, a faction of the Bitcoin community launched an audacious experiment: a new version of Bitcoin called Bitcoin Cash that's incompatible with the standard version. As a result, the Bitcoin network split into two mutually incompatible networks that will operate side-by-side. The confusing result is that if you owned one bitcoin before the split you own two bitcoins now: one coin on the original Bitcoin network, and a second coin on the new Bitcoin Cash network. The two coins have the same cryptographic credentials, but they have very different values if you sell them for old-fashioned dollars. On Wednesday morning, one standard Bitcoin was worth about $2,700, while -- on paper at least -- a unit of Bitcoin Cash was worth around $600. [...]
For over a year, the Bitcoin network has been bumping up against a capacity limit hard-coded into the Bitcoin software. Each block in the Bitcoin blockchain -- the network's public, shared transaction ledger -- is limited to 1 megabyte. That artificial limit prevents the network from processing more than about seven transactions per second. Technically speaking, it would be trivial to change that 1 megabyte limit to a higher value. But proposals to do so have faced opposition from traditionalists who argue the limit is actually an important feature of Bitcoin's design that protects the network's democratic character. To participate in the network's peer-to-peer process for clearing transactions, a computer needs a copy of every transaction ever made on the Bitcoin network, which adds up to gigabytes of data per month. This argument has dragged on for more than two years with no resolution. So instead of continuing to bicker, a group of big-block supporters took matters into their own hands. They forked the standard, open-source Bitcoin client to create a rival version of the software.
For over a year, the Bitcoin network has been bumping up against a capacity limit hard-coded into the Bitcoin software. Each block in the Bitcoin blockchain -- the network's public, shared transaction ledger -- is limited to 1 megabyte. That artificial limit prevents the network from processing more than about seven transactions per second. Technically speaking, it would be trivial to change that 1 megabyte limit to a higher value. But proposals to do so have faced opposition from traditionalists who argue the limit is actually an important feature of Bitcoin's design that protects the network's democratic character. To participate in the network's peer-to-peer process for clearing transactions, a computer needs a copy of every transaction ever made on the Bitcoin network, which adds up to gigabytes of data per month. This argument has dragged on for more than two years with no resolution. So instead of continuing to bicker, a group of big-block supporters took matters into their own hands. They forked the standard, open-source Bitcoin client to create a rival version of the software.
Some people, like the owner of this address https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin%20cash/address/1JCe8z4jJVNXSjohjM4i9Hh813dLCNx2Sy got $43million richer overnight, if they were to cash out all of their bitcoin cash holdings right now.
core bitcoin is also 'soft-forking' to get bigger block sizes a the same time.
This will in the next few hours / days activate a software update giving the official bitcoin chain bigger block sizes.
To see the activation status see: http://segwit.co/
Bitcoin cash does have some interesting ideas but i'd probably stick with bitcoin as they finally have gotten thair act together and implemented a solution to the problem.
I propose we start forking BTC every week and short the everliving fuck out of it while the mass confusion and general annoyance drives the price into the ground. Plus, if every other fork gains even a tiny bit of traction, then you've magically made a ton of money in the process. If they can do it, why can't we?
I propose we call next week's fork "Bitcoin Money". Then after that, we can switch to "Bitcoin Dollar", "Bitcoin Platinum", and any other snazzy marketing name someone can come up with that includes the name "Bitcoin". Let's burn the whole fucking thing to the ground and make a heap of money doing it.
TBL is now an expert on bitcoin, too? News to me. :trollface:
Actually, it does not matter. Bitcoin Cash is redundant. They may be correct as to the technical merits of why a change is needed regarding maximum block size but their fork is unnecessary. Ordinary Bitcoin may adopt a larger block size or some other remedy at any time in the future. The argument is only over whether something needs to be done today. Well that and internal developer politics.
Regular Bitcoin is not locked into some doomed course. They can make a block size change on the timeframe they think appropriate; or if Bitcoin Cash does enjoy increasing popularity they can make the change to put an end to the defections to the other side. Either way Bitcoin Cash seems doomed. Although I'm sure some speculators will find a way to make money off the hype.
Most on the mining power for 'Bitcoin Cash' aka 'BCash' was applied as a joke; they have less than 7% of the hashing power of BTC; and could be easily taken over with a 51% attack on mining.
https://bitsonline.com/hong-ko...
it's not split in half, it's split off a sliver.
Disclosure, I own one quarter of one Bitcoin/BCash.
Its my understanding that bitcoin is not a fiat currency there is no proclamation from anyone with authority claiming its value, as well its not a currency backed by a commodity or good, so controlling the scarcity seems to be an incredibly important factor.
If I understand it correctly, previously the rate was limited to a linear function of time, but now this appears to be very broken as it can be doubled at any time?
And lastly I haven't even looked to see how the market for the currency has been affected but I would assume that it has to decrease as people come to understand the total amount of currency can be doubled or more at any time?
This is just Jihan's coin. If you support the miners and want high transaction fees and a centralized coin support this
Now both projects are exactly half as relevant to their purpose. Good job guys.
Not funny.
But proposals to do so have faced opposition from traditionalists
I love that a 9 year currency which has yet to really break into mainstream usage has traditionalists.
So the main feature is that the block size is 8x the size of BTC's. So now instead of the entire network being able to only handle 7 transactions/second it can handle only 56? SWIFT handles ~350 transactions/second on a good day, for comparison. Furthermore, the entire blockchain at this point is currently ~126GB. That's enough to fill up most mobile devices by itself. So with 8x the block size, the blockchain will soon be in the terabytes? Storage isn't getting larger/cheaper at that rate any more. Sounds like someone needs to fix the "you need the entire history of the world's financial transactions" problem next.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Let's add it.
but sometimes other people just split didnt doing what we work. end then i just want tell him please come and join on http://qqkartu.com
What I read was that that block limit is a hack and could be and should be done away with, that the effect of hitting the limit has been to drive up transactions costs. The cost of a transaction should be some microscopic fraction of a cent, but now it's 5.50 USD.
The people who are raking in the money are the huge (and I hate to say it) Chinese mining pools. And *these* people, I read, are launching DDOS attacks on anyone trying to increase the block size.
Finally, I've also read the guy in the charge of the source base is a complete no-hoper, which is why there's finally been a fork - people are trying to get BitCoin out of the pit it's fallen into.
One method that could sorta work is a form of super-peers, but even more of them than normal.
A typical super-peer system would be too low that it would be open to abuse.
It would need to be done in such a way to prevent people fannying around with the data.
So you need a certain number of these super-peers to prevent collusion and changing the record.
Let's face it, people with the money to store such a huge record is going to be the people that definitely want to change the system.
It's going to get to the point where these huge mining companies essentially become the record holders while your typical mining pleb has no idea the system is being changed.
All you bitcoin purists have now lost the battle.
Your value has been played with by the real controllers, the exchanges.
The exchanges might as well be central banks!!!
Who ever is the biggest exchange will control the future of bitcoin and this is why its going to crash
Nobody cares about Imaginary Property so who cares about Imaginary Currency? This stuff may have short term value. But you have no idea what it will do long term. It also seems to get stolen a lot (several Bit Coin issues over the years, the recent Etherium one, etc.). But at the end of the day it is just imaginary money.
And money launderers. Don't forget money launderers!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Are they hoping to launder it more quickly through Bitcoin Cash, or are they hoping that the chaos of this division makes it easier to hide?
If the network can split, and can force me, you or anybody else to the new one and change your bitcoin without your control, then it just proves my point of why you should never trust a crypto currency, should never use them.
This one is an experiment, but there is going to be a big switch at tome point to a fed controlled crypto currency. We can't allow them to get that control under ANY circumstances.
The enduring contribution of Bitcoin appears to be the blockchain idea, which is being tested in a number of applications the Bitcoin developers never envisioned:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
These would enable such things as personal identity to be managed without a central authority.
The BTC split subjects Bitcoin users to an involuntary A/B test of a change to the original blockchain that could support faster transaction processing. Let's see whether the winner is A, B, or none of the above.
Yes it was. Everybody needs to speak plain English, not type like some hood rat giberish that only hood rats can understand.
All we need now is to mention terrorists and we've hit all 4 horsemen!
It was the first but that doesn't mean it should stay on top. There is no value to it other than what we give it in our minds. There is no reason to stay with it as it does have problems. Both groups should stop using the name "bitcoin". There is room and a need for multiple digital currencies.
Bitcoin is simply not good for consumer transactions. If you can wait 15 minutes to an hour to complete transactions like stock purchases use to take in 1901 then it's viable. If I am dealing in large amounts of money then I prefer bitcoin and can wait.
bitcoin money laundering drugs terrorism pedophilia.
Split in half? Bitcoin Cash represents far less than 50% of the formerly unified Bitcoin block chain. If you cut out a small piece of a pie, you have not cut it in half.
When you consider Bitcoin to be a similar value proposition to a stock market, then you understand Bitcoin value better.
And the fork is a unique event, probably causing more trouble than it solves. But value? If Bill Gates liquidated his Microsoft shares, would he impact the price, and therefore his value? Yup. Bitcoin holders are sort of trapped in their market.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Since it is a religious war anyway we can simply start naming the fragments after various sects and have an easier way of tracking which we are discussing. Bitcoin-Jehovah's Witness anyone?
If I understand correctly, the owner of a pre-fork bitcoin can now sell it twice, on standard bitcoin and on bitcoin cash.
That is not a huge problem, except for platforms that pretend to handle both bitcoins. I assume they will need to consider them as two distinct currencies.