Scaling Bitcoin will happen sooner or later. The only question right now is how different teams of developers plan to accomplish this. There are different camps trying to make this happen, either through a soft or a hard fork. One of the latest proposals trying to push for a Bitcoin hard fork goes by the name of Bitcoin ABC. It is an interesting proposal, which suggests an adjustable blocksize cap.
Bitcoin ABC is All About Raising The Cap
Introducing a Bitcoin hard fork solution is always a contentious proposal. There are quite a few differences between a hard fork and a soft fork. In most cases a hard fork has a greater chance of causing a network split, which is the last thing Bitcoin needs right now. Despite the risk, we currently have a few Bitcoin UAHF proposals competing for community traction.
The latest project to gain some momentum is Bitcoin ABC. The “ABC” part stands for Adjustable Blocksize Cap, which indicates users can determine their preferred blocksize accordingly. This feature will be appreciated by both miners and users alike. However, this may cause issues for people dealing with slower internet connections or internet data caps. It appears the maximum block size of this proposal is 16MB, although that is only a temporary placeholder.
Certain aspects about Bitcoin ABC will interest some people and infuriate others. For example, Bitcoin ABC will not support replace-by-fee, which has been a popular solution to avoiding Bitcoin network congestion. In theory, a larger block size will be a more effective way to avoid paying high fees, but it may still warrant the use of replace-by-fee. Not supporting this solution is rather strange.
Additionally, Bitcoin ABC has no plans to activate Segregated Witness whatsoever. That should not come as a big surprise to many people. A large part of the Bitcoin community is in favor of seeing SegWit activate, but still want nothing to do with it. Moving away from SegWit is also in line with Bitmain’s contingency plan, which was introduced several weeks ago. A user-activated hard fork without SegWit makes sense for this particular part of the community.
It is possible Bitcoin ABC is one of the “three UAHF implementations” that Bitmain referred to in their infamous blog post. This has not been officially confirmed by either party, although many suspect this is the case. The Bitcoin ABC developers are in contact with miners, as well as Jihan Wu and Haipo Yang. This seems to virtually confirm Bitcoin ABC is “endorsed” by them, even without all the specifics of the program being available.
It appears Bitcoin ABC has the support of various mining pools, but the group behind the proposal seems hesitant to confirm or deny which pools. According to a recent Reddit post, it is up to the pools to publicly announce their intentions. It will be interesting to see which – if any – pools come forward in support of Bitcoin ABC. We can expect more specifications over the coming weeks and it will be interesting to see if this UAHF solution can truly contend with other proposed solutions.
BitcoinABC = Bitcoin AsicBoost Compatible
via supermari0 (Reddit – r/Bitcoin)
FYI: BitcoinABC Devs are Removing SegWit in order to Save Jihan Wu’s ASICBoost back door.
I really hope Bitmain gets their own block chain. Let’s let the market decide what is more valuable!
Bullsh1t
Check out reddit /r/btc or r/bitcoinABC for uncensored information.
Going there is cheaper than a frontal lobotomy.
Discover where he acquired his vocabulary and debaiting [sic] skills.
You’re nothing other than a moronic troll whose only purpose is to throw mud and hope that some sticks. Frankly I despise your sort.
Bullsh1t
Asicboost has literally no relevance to the sacling debate, but good job eating up propaganda.
If SegWit is introduced via soft fork rather than Jihan’s preferred hard fork, his AsicBoost advantage gets destroyed. Jihan’s push for bigger blocks requires a hard fork which would preserve his AB cheat mechanism. It’s everything to do with the scaling debate but good job trying to deflect and protect his sorry a$$.
Are you daft? Mining is a competitive business, if a company wants to increase the efficiency of their hardware which they sell to people, they have every right to do so. At the same time every other company can do the same. Do you also think building better ASICs is an evil act as well?
Besides there is no proof that AsicBoost was ever used and there is also no proof for anything you have said.
Check out BitcoinABC (Bitmain hard fork) – It’s a clone of Core with SegWit removed entirely.
88+% of the community wants SegWit – but Bitmain doesn’t.
No doubt you can prove that AsicBoost was never used and that there’s no proof for anything I have said – because you can just pull out proof even when the opposite is transparently obvious.
Check out Bitcoin XT, Classic, Unlimited or Cash, all better than Segshit implementations. 88% of the community does not want Segwit, I think you should not get your info from censored platforms, Segwit2X is a compromise that has Segwit + a hard fork block increase. The UAHF is a backup plan.
And your last sentence doesn’t make sense, either you have proof for what you claim or you don’t, in which case your comment is worthless.
Ach, you’re just flapping in the dark.
SegWit will be active in a few days/weeks – that’s how badly we don’t want SegWit, LOL.
Do you know about the HK or the NY agreement? Segwit + hardfork was what the community agreed to since the beginning but Blockstream and Core broke both of those agreements. Now we have Segwit2X which will be hardfork + Segwit and it has overwhelming support from the miners. However Segwit will be there as a malleability fix, not as a scaling solution obsiously.
Bitcoin doesn’t have agreements – it has consensus rules written into its code – no shady back-room deals.
“Core” is not some company that can make or break deals.
It’s the NYA signatories that have broken their agreement – they haven’t even got their code tested and they’re backing down on November fork.
So, now SegWit has overwhelming support, which you denied when I said it.
They could have had SegWit two years ago but Core managed to implement it as a soft fork (which would break AsicBoost).
Those agreements were between Core and the miners and Core didn’t honor that agreement.
Segwit by Blockstream didn’t have overwhelming support and it is not the same as Segwit2X which includes a hard fork.
Sigh. No group represents Bitcoin; it has no management that turns up at meetings. Don’t believe everything Chinese miners feed you.
Like most big-blockers, you seem to be hung up on who wrote SegWit – it’s open source and written by several contributors – one or two of them could also be doing Blockstream work.
Segwit2x is a copy/paste, therefore written by the exact same group.
The insistence or expection of a bolted-on hard fork is the only thing that makes it unacceptable to the majority. It won’t happen; SegWit alone will in just a few days time.
Of course no group represents Bitcoin, unfortunately Core and Blockstream have tried to do exactly that by censoring and controlling the community platforms.
Segregated Witness was created by the Core team which is funded by Blockstream.
Segwit2X is not a copy paste and it’s certainly not written by the same group. You seem to have very little knowledge about the things you are talking about. The hard fork is coded into the protocol, which is why miners and businesses accepted Segwit2X in the first place. Please inform yourself first.
i hope you’re right..
digital ocean
bitcoin wallet