Mike hearn medium bitcoin mining
Fenton is a self described freedom-loving techno geek. Like many in the blockchain industry he is a free-market economist and advocate for lower regulations. Leading up to the event, the community appeared to be supportive.
Who do they think they are, the Illuminati? There were CEOs of important Bitcoin companies including exchanges, wallets, alternative blockchains and cryptocurrencies. Both contingents of the major rift were amply represented. On one side of the rift is the Bitcoin Core team, who are contributors to the main Bitcoin source base, and take the responsibility of maintaining and enhancing it, and more importantly, prioritizing the numerous suggestions for enhancement.
For over a year, they have taken the stance that making a one-off enhancement to increase the blocksize does not serve Bitcoin well; that yes the block size needs to be increased, but it should be done later, perhaps second or third or fourth, as part of a larger set of important changes. Most importantly, they prioritize high consensus among miners and safety i. As Matt Corallo put it: At this point, however, the entire Bitcoin community seems to have unified around a single vision — roughly 2MB of transactions per block, whether via Segregated Witness or via a hard fork, is something that can be both technically supported and which adds more headroom before second-layer technologies must be in place.
Additionally, it seems that the vast majority of the community agrees that segregated witness should be implemented in the near future and that hard forks will be a necessity at some point.
With the apparent agreement in the community, it is incredibly disheartening that there is still so much strife…. After being unsuccessful in convincing the Bitcoin Core team to prioritize increasing the blocksize, Gavin has created an alternative implementation, called Bitcoin Classic. Bitcoin Classic makes only that one change of increasing the blocksize; some miners think this is thus the safer alternative, purely by virtue of the fact that it consists of vastly fewer changes.
Tensions had been high prior to the Roundtable, but the conversation started off constructively. The group began by finding common ground around two things: There was agreement that the rift was hurting everyone. There was also agreement that Bitcoin splitting into two blockchains would be very, very bad; transactions would be lost or duplicated; that it would be unclear what the real Bitcoin was; that the reputational damage would be significant.
Everyone agreed that the problem started off over blocksize and that still is the immediate problem but the inability of the community to resolve that problem has surfaced a larger problem: But this is a seriously hard problem to solve because a bitcoin is all about decentralization and not having the need to trust a central entity, b Bitcoin is not controlled by any one body or even jurisdiction and c this group, and the community in general, reacts very negatively to any suggestions for a governance structure or body.
The fifty or so people broke up into seven different subgroups which at times came together and at times separately over lunches, dinners and drinks. A group which included a large miner and a large exchange operator felt that the Hong Kong agreement was fine, as long as the timeline for the block size increase was moved up. Another group felt that the go-forward goals should be to encourage more companies to mine, to contribute to the decentralization of Bitcoin, with two distinct sub-goals: Periodically the groups reminded each other that they have a credibility problem and that outsiders looking in are not impressed by the impasse.
Over the course of the group discussions, some called for a more civil discourse among the two sides of the debate, while others said that the divergent approaches were not actually mutually exclusive and that both approaches could be executed if the factions could agree upon a timeline. They pointed out that some were short-term goals block size and some were long-term goals governance, and how we decide these things in the future.
Consensus rules are the code that determines whether there is consensus among the miners, a tallying of votes if you will, which can be used to decide many things, including… wait for it… which fork of the Bitcoin code to run. This had been discussed prior to the Roundtable and most people seemed to think that the idea had legs and a variation of the idea could work; but debating which variation was another governance issue.
I am convinced that I was the only one amused by the fact that in the real world, minors cannot vote; while in Bitcoin, only miners can vote. We do need standardization of the protocol and a widely-accepted roadmap for implementing and releasing improvements.
This is hard without a leader, a governance model, or other form of consensus. Perhaps we need to establish a protocol or accepted way of choosing the path forward so we can make progress as a group. Others were adamant that that was very narrow thinking. The miners present at the Roundtable, interestingly, did not debate this, and did not seem to disagree.
The game is over if we have do that. Bitcoin will never be the same. Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase, warned that Bitcoin as a protocol and as an industry is in a bad place, a dangerous place. Retrieved 7 January Will it break, or be better than ever? Retrieved 5 January Luther 8 September History Economics Legal status. List of bitcoin companies List of bitcoin organizations List of people in blockchain technology.
Retrieved from " https: Bitcoin clients Free software software Beta software. All articles with unsourced statements Articles with unsourced statements from August Views Read Edit View history.
Languages Esperanto Edit links. This page was last edited on 26 April , at