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 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
Pro 30

Solving The Bitcoin Block Size Debate With A Two-Pronged Proposal

Source: bitcoin

Solving The Bitcoin Block Size Debate With A Two-Pronged Proposal

As much as most people would like to think otherwise, the Bitcoin block size debate is far from over. Various new proposals have been suggested in the past, and another interesting concept was posted on Reddit earlier today. According to this user, a small block size increase should be done first, followed by the integration of Segregated Witness. Addressing the key issue as soon as possible should be the top priority for all Bitcoin developers.

Also read: Moe Levin on TNABC Miami 2016, Patrick Byrne Speaking This Year

Two Separate Block Size Solutions Combined Into One

Based on the findings of the Reddit in question, Segregated Witness should not be the first and foremost solution to settling the Bitcoin block size debate. The reason for this is simple: Segregated Witness would split block data into two streams, which will both be stored on the user’s hard disk. As a result, Bitcoin Nodes will still be dealing with an increased block size, making this less of a favorable solution for some users.

Even though the user strongly feels Segregated Witness has its merits, Bitcoin developers have been showing a level of hypocrisy when talking about this solution. When everything’s said and done, bandwidth and disk space requirements will still increase for all parties involved, albeit in slightly smaller sizes compared to other previous proposals. By addressing this solution as a “soft fork”, Bitcoin developers hope to sway the mind of community members into making this the preferred solution.

In addition, it looks like Segregated Witness is more about fixing the transaction malleability system than having to do with the Bitcoin block size debate. While it is important to address transaction malleability sooner rather than later, a solution has to be found to solve the block size debate at the same time, without resorting to the semantic game.

There is no reason a small block size increase can’t be done – it takes a minor alteration to the existing code – and implement Segregated Witness afterward. Keeping in mind how a small block size increase has nearly identical disk footprint requirements compared to segwit, and can be implemented in a much shorter time frame, this approach seems to have a certain merit.

Segregated Witness Needs To Be Tested And Vetted

Even though Segregated Witness is a valid solution, testing and vetting the code base will take weeks, if not months, to complete. Increasing the Bitcoin block size itself is a more pressing matter, as this issue has been kicked around for far too long already. Increasing the block size soonish, and implementing segwit after the vetting process seems to be a smart approach.

Based on the Reddit feedback so far, a lot of Bitcoin community members see the benefits of this two-pronged approach. After all, decisions like these rely on reaching consensus among the bitcoin community. Whether or not the Bitcoin developers will keep this proposal in mind, remains to be seen, though.

What are your thoughts on this block size proposal? Are you in favor of doing things in two different phases? Let us know in the comments below!

Source: Reddit

Images courtesy of Shutterstock, Peak Usability

The post Solving The Bitcoin Block Size Debate With A Two-Pronged Proposal appeared first on Bitcoinist.net.

Solving The Bitcoin Block Size Debate With A Two-Pronged Proposal

Share