Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by FatPhil on Wednesday August 02 2017, @11:44PM   Printer-friendly
from the pieces-of-two,-pieces-of-two dept.

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.

[...] 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.

Small-block supporters worry that raising the block limit will raise the storage and bandwidth costs of participating in the network, pricing out ordinary users. That could lead to a Bitcoin network dominated by a few big players, making the network more susceptible to government control and regulation—exactly what Bitcoin was created to avoid.

Big-block supporters say storage and bandwidth costs have fallen so quickly that this isn't a serious concern. And they say Bitcoin is going to need to process a lot more than seven transactions per second to become a mainstream technology with a real shot at changing the world.

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.

Source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/why-the-bitcoin-network-just-split-in-half-and-why-it-matters/

Also covered at: https://www.engadget.com/2017/08/01/bitcoin-feud-splits-the-cryptocurrency-in-two/

Considering our crypto-currency story from yesterday, Internet's Largest Bitcoin Mixer Shuts Down Realizing Bitcoin is Not Anonymous, do Soylentils think that perhaps Bitcoin might be starting to fray at the seams?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Justin Case on Thursday August 03 2017, @12:51AM (2 children)

    by Justin Case (4239) on Thursday August 03 2017, @12:51AM (#548184) Journal

    I admit following "digital currency" only from a distance, but I thought what made the whole concept work was the immutability of the blockchain, once transactions had settled and been confirmed by more than 50% of the participants.

    Now we have Ether-whatever forking whenever they want to erase a mistake. Whatever happened to "no central authority" and "payments are irrevocable"?

    One of the criticisms of Bitcoin is the "built in deflation". But hey if we can just fork it every week (and thereby double the number of coins that exist?) isn't that rather inflationary?

    It seems like a lot of promises are turning out to be empty and digital currencies are on the verge of losing whatever credibility they might have had.

    Billion dollar bubble bursting time???

    "Fray at the seams"? Uh, yeah! Someone has been sanding off the corners of the "1" bits, just like used to happen with gold coins!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by liberza on Thursday August 03 2017, @02:33AM

    by liberza (6137) on Thursday August 03 2017, @02:33AM (#548196)

    The number of Bitcoin that will ever exist has not changed. When the block chain forks, the longest branch of that fork is "Bitcoin". The other branch of that fork is not. In this case, that other branch is BCash.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @05:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @05:51PM (#548439)

    that's why ethereum classic exists. because you can't go and change history just because you (or other entities) don't like it.