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.

24 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. segwit2 support in core by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  2. It doesn't matter actually ... by perpenso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It doesn't matter actually ... by Tim12s · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The original bitcoin had no blocksize limit. Bitcoin Cash simply increased the blocksize from 1MB to 8MB. Bitcoin Cash is the real bitcoin. Bitcoin Segwit changes the way the formula works and should actually be considered an altcoin.

      The crux of the politics comes down to the future revenue streams from transactions. 81% of current hashing power is Chinese and that online wallets/exchanges/gateways do not want to send future transaction fees to china. The Bitcoin name is being usurped by an altcoin and a media campaign is supporting this.

      Look, I'm not happy with chinese getting 81% of hashing power and subsequent control, i'm also not happy with the wallets and exchanges getting control. I might-as-well stick with VISA for my banking settlement as it is regulated and protects me. The crux about cash in your hand is that you can spend it however you want without regard. The future BTC will not be able to transact as it will become a settlement layer with all real business transactions moving off the chain.

      I'll stick with VISA instead of moving to LN.

    2. Re:It doesn't matter actually ... by afgam28 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even if Bitcoin does raise the block size one day, it's still not clear to me how it's ever going to scale high enough to become a general purpose currency. Going from 7 transactions/second to 56 sounds nice and all, but Visa and Mastercard handle about 2000 transactions/second. Each.

      Are they going to eventually go to a 600+ MB block size? Or are a sizeable number of transactions going to have to go through bank-like intermediaries?

    3. Re:It doesn't matter actually ... by namgge · · Score: 2

      People are weird.

    4. Re: It doesn't matter actually ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your numbers are a little out of date. Visa last year alone averaged 4500 transactions a second.

    5. Re:It doesn't matter actually ... by Troed · · Score: 2

      Segwit, due to be implemented in the original Bitcoin code within a few weeks, allows for side channels (lightning networks) where such quick clearing & settlement can be performed. There's no real limit to how many transactions per second can be done that way, although it's a different kind of settlement than the completely decentralized version that's on-chain.

    6. Re: It doesn't matter actually ... by swillden · · Score: 2

      Your numbers are a little out of date. Visa last year alone averaged 4500 transactions a second.

      It should be pointed out that "Visa" isn't a transaction clearing system. It's a bank association. Large numbers of transactions are easily handled because there is no single system that all of the transactions flow through. There is a set of card issuing banks, a set of merchant acquiring banks, and a set of clearinghouses that connect them -- for the cases that the acquiring banks and issuing banks don't just connect directly, which they often do.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  3. Re:Some people got rich overnight by Zaelath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some people, like the owner of this address https://bitinfocharts.com/bitc... got $43million richer overnight, if they could cash out all of their bitcoin cash holdings right now.

    FTFY

  4. Literally a joke by Kaenneth · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Literally a joke by FeelGood314 · · Score: 2

      The 51% attack is mostly theoretical. Yes, it could be done but it would destroy the value of what you are stealing so what would be the point? Plus, there would be blow back. It would tarnish the value of BTC. There will be an equilibrium between the price of BCC and BTC in value and in hashing ability. The two will closely follow each other with the Hashing power lagging slightly. The only value in Bit coins is their ability to facilitate transactions. If the new Bit cash is better it will likely gain in value.

    2. Re:Literally a joke by Kaenneth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly to destroy it.

  5. Does this break the limited supply 'feature'? by Mr307 · · Score: 2

    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?

    1. Re:Does this break the limited supply 'feature'? by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It sound more like that they created what is effectively an entirely new currency, after all the two are incompatible.

      So somehow, they created a huge amount of value (on paper, at least - good luck converting all these "coins" in real world cash) unless the original BTC has dropped by USD 600 per coin at the same time. Nothing like it is mentioned in TFS.

      So originally you had one BTC valued at USD 2,700. After the split you still have your BTC valued at USD 2,700, but on top of that a BTC-Cash that's valued at USD 600. So now your holding has a paper value of USD 3,300.

      Weird. But then I've also never really understood the speculation going on in stock markets and futures and commodities and whatnot.

    2. Re:Does this break the limited supply 'feature'? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's an extra wrinkle: it's downright trivial to make your own new 'coin'(at least if it's a close clone of one of the existing ones; making more significant architectural changes would obviously be a bigger job). There are even handy web interfaces that will make them for you; just plug in your parameters and go.

      However, creating a new variant doesn't affect the scarcity of the existing variant: there are more 'coins' in circulation overall; but 'coins' from one fork can always be distinguished from those of the other; so the scarcity of Fork X 'coins' remains the same; but now there are Fork Y 'coins' as well.

      The really scarce resource is interest: as noted, having your own pet 'coin' and blockchain is extremely trivial; but also likely to be worthless because you can't pass it off as being the 'real thing'; and nobody else cares about it. This incident is somewhat notable not in that it's the creation of yet another cryptocurrency variant(which happens all the time); but that there was enough discontent with the existing arrangement that the fork has actually attracted some attention and isn't completely worthless.

    3. Re:Does this break the limited supply 'feature'? by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Informative

      Weird. But then I've also never really understood the speculation going on in stock markets and futures and commodities and whatnot.

      If you're like me, you do, but rejected the correct answer because it seemed so silly.

      It's explained reasonably well by analogy with the Parable of the Ox Explained here on the BBC's excellent "More Or Less" radio programme/podcast, but if you prefer to read here's the author's post.

    4. Re:Does this break the limited supply 'feature'? by swillden · · Score: 2

      It's explained reasonably well by analogy with the Parable of the Ox

      No, it isn't. At least, it isn't if we're talking about shares in real companies, or quantities of real commodities.

      The parable starts out pretty good, but where it breaks down is in its assumption that the scale goes away completely. In the parable, the weight of the ox becomes entirely divorced from any sort of reality, but that doesn't happen in securities, because there is an underlying value in the security: it's future earning potential. The parable really needs to add some notion that the ox, or parts of it, will eventually be weighed, actually weighed, not just acceptance of an average value of guesses, and incorrect guesses will lose at that point.

      For example, for the last couple of years I've been investing money now and then in shares of TSLA. At this point, I own a few thousand dollars worth of the company, based on the current consensus view of what the whole company is worth, divided by the number of shares in total. Now this consensus total value is many, many times the value of Tesla's actual assets. And it's also significantly higher than most other common methods of estimating value, based on revenue, income, etc.

      Why is it high? Because lots of people guess it should be? Sort of... but not really. And we will eventually find out whether that high valuation was or was not correct. The ox will get weighed. How?

      It's high because there is a possibility that Tesla will experience explosive success, generating massive revenues and profits that will replay the relatively high cost of investing now. Pulling the price down, though, is the possibility that Tesla will fail to achieve that level of success, but just continue being a niche carmaker. Pulling it down some more is the possibility that the EV and solar home markets will never really pan out, or that Tesla will fail to execute well on delivering its promises to its customers. In either case, it could crash and burn, becoming worth a tiny fraction of its current value, or even going bankrupt. I owned one stock that followed this path, becoming completely worthless.

      There's an underlying business that will succeed or fail, and in doing so will justify some current stock price. We don't know what that currently-justifiable price is, which is where the uncertainty and the guessing come in. But, as I said before, the ox will be weighed. There is a core reality underlying the security whose value we're guessing; it's not pure guess-averaging.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  6. Re:Some people got rich overnight by Kaenneth · · Score: 2

    Except, for the moment, there is nowhere to cash them out.

  7. 56 Transactions/Sec? by mentil · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:56 Transactions/Sec? by Khyber · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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."

      Won't happen, can't happen. Idiots still haven't learned the problems experienced in the 70s regarding permissionless distributed databases. Rather, people aren't teaching them because they (foolishly) ignored mathematical proofs, then actual demonstration.

      It simply cannot scale with technology and human transactions.

      And it's repeating that history as evidenced by this fork (which STILL isn't good enough, the short-sighted idiots.)

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:56 Transactions/Sec? by complete+loony · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To mine you only need to hash the latest block, so long as you can trust other people to verify the transactions you are hashing.

      To verify new transactions, you only need to keep the set of unspent transactions around, and you could partition that easily enough.

      And you could depend on other people to hold all that data for you. There's no real advantage to everyone storing the whole block chain forever, so long as enough people have a backup copy somewhere.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
  8. Re:Some people got rich overnight by gsslay · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And as soon as they attempted to, the value of them would plummet.

  9. Re:Some people got rich overnight by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they were to "cash out" all their bitcoin holdings the price would plummet before selling even more than 1000 btc. Try to cash out and see what happens in a market with no volume.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  10. Re:Some people got rich overnight by Aaden42 · · Score: 2

    Transaction volume within a currency isn't the same thing as transfer in/out volume. Bajillions of dollars worth of transactions are conducted in USD every day. If suddenly everyone who had USD tried to sell it for some other currency, the price of USD would plummet.

    The fact that lots of transactions fly back & forth within BTC doesn't mean you'd find the equivalent in value of people willing to give you fiat currency for your BTC. The guy with $43mill? That's over 10% of the daily volume. Try to shift 10% of a currency's daily volume into sales to another currency. You're in Zimbabwe territory at that point.