Úno 01

Antpool Announces Bitcoin Classic Beta Testing

Source: bitcoin

Bitcoinist_Beta Testing Bitcoin Classic

The ongoing Bitcoin block size debate has been a source for a fair bit of controversy and discussion in recent months, but it finally looks like a decision is just around the corner. With Bitcoin Core having to address some security concerns regarding segwit, and Bitcoin Classic going into beta testing today, developers are off to the races to compile a properly secured block size solution. Antpool is upping the game by announcing beta testing of Bitcoin Classic.

Also read: Gamerholic, the Next ‘Billion Dollar Gaming Company’? A Q&A With Anari Sengbe

Antpool Starts Bitcoin Classic Beta Trial

It was only a matter of time until the Bitcoin Classic proposal started showing what it is all about, and a beta version of the client has been released. The main goal of this proposal is to increase the Bitcoin block size to 2MB, but use a hard fork to do so. Various community members are worried this is too risky of a solution, as there are some downsides to hard forking Bitcoin.

At the same time, security questions have arose regarding the Bitcoin Core solution and its Segregated Witness implementation. While this soft fork approach is far less risky for the network than implementing a hard fork, the current version of segwit is far from optimal. Especially the Chinese mining pools are questioning this proposal, and seem to be more in favor of Bitcoin Classic right now.

So much even that Antminer CEO Wu Jihan reported how Antpool will be implementing the Bitcoin Classic beta client very soon. Performing a real life stress test of this proposal will tell whether or not this is a viable idea to solve the Bitcoin block size debate once and for all. Keeping in mind how Antpool is one of the largest Bitcoin mining pools in the world, a successful test may result in other pools adopting Bitcoin Classic in its beta form as well.

Other major mining pools pledging support for Bitcoin Classic in the past include BW and BitFury. Furthermore, mining hardware manufacturers KnCMiner and Avalon have also expressed their preference for this solution, as has cloud mining provider Genesis Mining. Plus, with so many major companies in the Bitcoin world supporting Bitcoin Classic as well, it seems as if this solution will be the one to keep an eye on. However, it is still too early to tell, as a lot will hinge on the results of the beta testing.

Addressing Segwit Security Worries

There are a few different concerns regarding the effectiveness of Segregated Witness if it were to be implemented in Bitcoin at all. Even though this proposal is aimed at creating 2 MB blocks, the effective size would be somewhere between 1.3 MB and 1.6 MB. Needless to say, this is not a perfect solution, although it would allow for slightly more transactions per block.

Additionally, segwit would require developers to make major changes to the source code of Bitcoin Core. Making these changes could lead into a whole slew of different problems down the road, which should be avoided at all costs. Especially when keeping in mind how Bitcoin Core developers are working through a backlog already before even thinking about implementing these new features.

What are your thoughts on Antpool starting the Bitcoin Classic beta testing soon? Will other pools or service providers follow their example? Let us know in the comments below!

Source: Weibo

Images courtesy of Shutterstock, Antpool

The post Antpool Announces Bitcoin Classic Beta Testing appeared first on Bitcoinist.net.

Antpool Announces Bitcoin Classic Beta Testing

Share
Led 18

F2Pool Statement Indicates Plan To Hard Fork 2MB Bitcoin Block Size

Source: bitcoin

F2Pool Statement Indicates Plan To Hard Fork 2MB Bitcoin Block Size

The Bitcoin block size debate has taken another interesting plot twist in the past few hours. F2Pool, one of the largest Chinese Bitcoin mining pools in the world, has announced they support the hard fork for an increased 2MB block size. While the post on BitcoinTalk is a weird translation from Chinese to English, it looks like F2Pool might be attempting to push people to accept the Bitcoin hard fork. Not a great move in the Bitcoin mining industry if this were to be the case.

Also read: Bitcoin A Perfect Tool To Offer Hacked TalkTalk Users A Form of Compensation

F2Pool Statement is Quite Worrying To Say The Last

Certain aspects of a statement can tend to get lost in translation, and Bitcoin community members can only hope this is the case regarding the post made by F2Pool on BitcoinTalk. The way things read right now, the Chinese mining pool is looking to accept the Bitcoin hard fork to up the block size to 2MB, and enforce that decision on the rest of the mining community as well.

It is not the first time F2Pool is causing a fair bit of controversy when it comes to the Bitcoin block size debate. One Reddit user pointed out how one of their representatives posted another statement about how zero-confirmations should be made as secure as possible, as the company does not believe in a fee market. Additionally, support for FSS-RBF will be dropped after upgrading to Bitcoin Core 0.12, a process that will take place over the next few weeks.

Needless to say, these statements are a reason for great concern in the Bitcoin community. With the block rewards not lasting forever, removing any transaction fees from the equation would provide less incentive for miners to support the network. While there are some people involved in Bitcoin mining for short-term profit, an ecosystem without transaction fees is not feasible in the long run.

There is no denying the ongoing Bitcoin block size debate will need to come to an end sooner rather than later. The issue has been plaguing the Bitcoin ecosystem for many months now, and there is still no solution in sight. A lot of community members seem to be for increasing the block size to 2MB, and a solution should come to fruition very soon.

Bitcoin Classic seems to hold all of the answers and solutions people have been looking for, including an increase to 2MB Bitcoin blocks. Furthermore, both Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik are onboard with this solution, giving Bitcoin Classic a more legitimate image. There is no need for any Bitcoin mining pool to force a hostile direction at this time, and F2Pool faces some serious questions that need answers.

Hard Fork For 2MB Seems Odd

With so many people in the Bitcoin ecosystem agreeing on increasing the block size to 2MB, forcing a hard fork right now seems like a dubious move. If F2Pool is planning to force the issue by employing a hard fork soon, another hard fork will need to follow for future block size increases. In the end, this creates a vicious loop of hard forks that could end up hurting the Bitcoin ecosystem more than anything.

By the look of things, the Bitcoin Core roadmap now includes a block size increase to 2MB as well, which would render part of the hard fork idea moot. However, there is still the issue of transaction fees versus no transaction fees to address in the near future. Anyone with half a brain can see why these minor fees are needed to keep the ecosystem going. The recent RC1 for a new Bitcoin Core version will change the way wallet fees are calculated, which opens up interesting opportunities.

What are your thoughts on this statement by F2Pool? Will they try to force a decision on the rest of the Bitcoin community? Let us know in the comments below!

Source: Bitcointalk

Images courtesy of Bitcoin Belgie, Shutterstock

The post F2Pool Statement Indicates Plan To Hard Fork 2MB Bitcoin Block Size appeared first on Bitcoinist.net.

F2Pool Statement Indicates Plan To Hard Fork 2MB Bitcoin Block Size

Share
Led 11

Bitcoin Core Releases Statement on Hard vs Soft Forks

Source: bitcoin

Bitcoin Core Releases Statement on Hard vs Soft Forks

Bitcoin Core, an “open source software project that is a direct descendant of the original Bitcoin implementation”, released a statement late last week on its website. The main focus was how Bitcoin consensus rules were changed, which is typically through soft forks and hard forks.

Also read: The Bitcoin Foundation Unveils 2016 Plan, Might Shut Down Instead 

Hard forks and soft forks do virtually the same thing, so Bitcoin Core argues that soft forks are to be preferred as they do not cause the amount of harm on the Bitcoin network as a hard fork can potentially do since users can choose to upgrade to new features when they want to, or remain or the current Bitcoin core version that they are on.

“Soft forks allow compatible changes. With soft forks, old and new software can co-exist on the network. Soft forks can introduce new features without disruption because users who want to use the new features can upgrade, while those who do not are free to continue as normal.”

Hard forks, on the other hand, can be compared to a turn you must take when driving, compared with a soft fork that is like a shortcut. The shortcut is both beneficial and optional, allowing users the chance to either take the shortcut or stick to their current route.

Here the “original road” represents Bitcoin Core before a soft fork. The “shortcut” would represent the soft fork, optional but highly recommended.

Besides the simple convenience factor that soft forks have over hard forks, there’s no disruption in the network that comes from everyone upgrading to the latest version. When there’s a majority of people on two different versions of Bitcoin core, it can lead to dangerous situations where Bitcoin transactions are accepted on one fork, but not on the other.

“Hard forks break compatibility of all previous Bitcoin software and require every participant to upgrade to the same rules by a deadline or risk losing money. Such events can also harm network effects by pushing participants off the network if they take no action, and by potentially breaking downstream software and applications.”

As debates continue to progress regarding new BIP proposals as well as the block size debate, another concern is how any changes to be made on Bitcoin are implemented. Bitcoin Core brings a strong case by suggesting soft forks be used the majority of the time, and hard forks to only be used when a proposed implementation is universally accepted.

What do you think? Should Bitcoin use soft or hard forks? Let us know in the comments below!


 

Photo Source: Wikimedia

The post Bitcoin Core Releases Statement on Hard vs Soft Forks appeared first on Bitcoinist.net.

Bitcoin Core Releases Statement on Hard vs Soft Forks

Share