My 7 Viewpoints about the Dispute of BCH on Bangkok Summit Meeting

Recently, there have been a dispute in the BCH community. On the basis of the consensus that BCH should achieve the goal of world currency, one side represented by CSW and nChain believes that achieving this goal requires stabilizing the underlying protocol on early

vision of Satoshi and rapidly expanding the capacity to attract large banks and large enterprises to adopt BCH. The other side represented by Jihan Wu and Bitmain believes that for the fierce market competition, BCH should adapt to the market, rapidly evolve, improve user experience, and expand capacity with market demand.

Specific differences are reflected in which CSW requires the suspension of the published ABC version upgrade, to accept the BSV version proposed by nChain, the capacity will be increased to 128M. Otherwise, he will make a hashrate attack. The Bitmain side believes that the published ABC version should be upgraded on schedule and the blocksize will expand to 128M if there is a real market demand and the network is well tested. There should be no worries about CSW’s attacks.

In order to eliminate misunderstanding and promote consensus, the parties agreed to hold the Bangkok summit of “BCH’s future” in Bangkok. The following are the 7 points of view that Prof. Liu Changyong held in the three times of his speech during the summit:

1, What the market needs is not a stable underlying protocol, but an improved user experience. This is a very simple reason. Alipay’s users don’t care about Alipay’s underlying protocol but they care about Alipay’s user experience. The underlying protocol stability is more difficult to improve user experience than the system without this restriction.

2, The coexistence of double chains (BCH and BTC) has weakened the voting power of miners. In a situation where there is only one chain of one algorithm, the miners’ sunk costs force them to carefully make their decisions and vote. But when BTC and BCH coexist, the miners do not need to care about BCH’s vote. They can mine BTC. Ultimately, the hashrate is determined by the price which determined by users. From the failure of the New York Consensus and the Hong Kong Consensus, I doubt the validity of the hashrate labeling approach to voting decisions.

3, Now it is impossible to go back to the time of Satoshi Nakamoto. We have to explore for ourselves. Satoshi Nakamoto could not foresee and take care all the difficulties that we are facing during the development of Bitcoin. Since the birthday of BCH, BTC and BCH double-chain coexistence, which has departed from Satoshi’s early ideas, resulting in tremendous changes, such as miner voting problem mentioned above. The first thing CSW needs to do to get back to the old days is to remove EDA and DAA from the new version, which won’t survive even for a month. We have no way out now, nor can we expect Satoshi to save the world.

4, At present, multi team competition is conducive to the decentralization of development. This is what I put forward in my 2016 article ( But this requires a new form of community governance, because competition makes it difficult to get unanimous agreement on each upgrade, and requires certain rules to make decisions. This is why I support the proposal of standardization by Haipo Yang.

5, You can’t be misled by “no fork”. In the presence of competitive teams and mutual resistance to upgrading, the so-called “never fork” consensus will become an obstacle to system evolution. Because minorities can stop any upgrade by a threat of forking. Therefore, I emphasize that we can not be kidnaped by “no fork”, nor do we need to “kidnap” others. Sometimes, the minorities are right, just like the born of BCH. The right of forking of the minorities should be recognized and protected.

6, The November upgrade, which has been released, should be carried out on schedule. The November version 0.18 upgrade is a normal upgrade proposed by the existed development team in accordance with the existed community governance structure. It should not be postponed or cancelled if there is no big problem. This delay or cancellation of the November upgrade will cause great obstacles to the subsequent upgrade. Many aspects of the ecosystem will be difficult to decide whether to deploy a published upgrade, because it may be postponed or cancelled under some objections. Objections seem to be inevitable due to the competition of teams of developers.

7, In the case of small scale market demand, too fast increase of blocksize limits will lead to the increase of operating costs of small enterprises (miners, exchanges etc.) in the ecology and even leave the ecology. This is just as unwise as the Core to drive small payment users away even the hardware conditions can carry dozens of times the current blocksize.

There were only three speeches in Liu’s speech in this meeting. Among them, viewpoints 1, 2 and 3 were made on the afternoon of August 30, viewpoint 7 on the morning of August 31 and viewpoints 4, 5 and 6 on the afternoon of August 31. The contents were arranged.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — —




1. 市场需要的不是稳定的底层协议,而是改进的用户体验。这是很简单的道理,支付宝的应用者不在乎支付宝的底层协议,在乎的是支付宝的用户体验。底层协议稳定必然比不受此限制的系统更难改进用户体验。

2. 多链并存的局面已经导致矿工投票效力减弱。在一种算力只有一条链的情况下,矿工的沉没成本迫使他们认真分析决策进行投票。但在btc和bch并存的情况下,矿工不需要关心bch的投票,它完全可以去挖btc。最终还是用户决定的价格来决定算力。因此,结合纽约共识、香港共识的失败,我怀疑算力标记投票决策的方式是否有效。

3. 现在已经不可能回到中本聪时代,我们必须自己探索前行。中本聪不可能预见并安排好比特币发展中面临的所有困难。从开发中心化最终导致BCH诞生开始,btc和bch双链并存,这就已经脱离了中本聪的早期设想,造成巨大的变化,比如上面的矿工投票问题。CSW想回到从前,首先需要做的就是在新版本中去掉EDA和DAA,这样的新版本一个月都活不下来。我们现在没有退路,也不能指望中本聪救世,只能努力向前摸索。

4. 当前多团队竞争有利于开发的去中心化。这是我2016年文章中就提出的。只是这需要新的社群治理方式,因为竞争使得每一次升级都难以获得一致同意,需要一定的规则来进行决策。这也是我支持海坡标准化建议的原因。

5. 不能被“绝不分叉”绑架。存在竞争团队和相互抵制升级的情况下,所谓“绝不分叉”共识会成为系统进化的障碍。因为少数派可以借分叉威胁阻止一切升级。因此,我强调不能被“绝不分叉”所绑架,也不用“绝不分叉”绑架别人。应当认同和保护少数派分叉的权力。

6. 已经发布的11月升级应按期进行。11月份0.18版本的升级是现有开发团队按照现有社区治理结构,正常提出的升级。没有明显的重大问题不应该推迟或取消。生态各环节将难以判断是否应该去部署和衔接一个公布了的升级,因为这个升级有可能由于有人反对而取消或推迟,而开发团队竞争的情况下,有人反对近乎是必然的。

7. 在市场需求很小的情况下,过快提高区块容量,会导致生态内小企业(矿工、交易所、支付商等)运行成本提高而离开生态。这跟core在硬件空间很大的情况下,就驱赶小额支付用户一样是不明智的。


Like what you read? Give Changyong.Liu a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.