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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @03:08AM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @03:08AM (#548206)

    That could lead to a Bitcoin network dominated by a few big players

    It already is, though? The top 5 miners account for more than 50% of all transactions.

  • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday August 03 2017, @03:28AM (2 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Thursday August 03 2017, @03:28AM (#548215)

    Also, isn't it partially a question of the "traditionalists" (read "early adopters") protecting their own profits for being an early adopter by pushing the deflationary nature of the currency?

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @03:45AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @03:45AM (#548220)

      The deflationary nature is mainly to encourage people to save rather than waste their money on stuff they don't really need and pollute the environment, etc.

      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday August 03 2017, @10:27PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Thursday August 03 2017, @10:27PM (#548506)

        That might be what they say the deflationary nature of Bitcoin is supposed to be for, but I have a hunch that a lot of the early adopters liked the idea that it would make the early adopters a bunch of money. Principles are nice and all, but they have a very noticeable tendency to obey self-interest.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @11:24AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @11:24AM (#548297)

    How is that not a huge problem? Note that TFA says

    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.

    Emphasis mine.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @06:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03 2017, @06:01PM (#548447)

      i don't understand why some checksum of the blockchain couldn't be used for the client nodes. why does everyone need the actual blockchain just to use the client/coin?