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 (https://www.8btc.com/article/113497). 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.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —