Connect with us

Bitcoin Cash

Bitcoin Cash [BCH] proponent Bitcoin ABC speaks up against Nakamoto Consensus

Priyamvada Singh



Bitcoin Cash [BCH] proponent Bitcoin ABC speaks up against Nakamoto Consensus
Source: Pixabay

The tension between the Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin ABC sub-communities has been spreading like wildfire. Recently, Calvin Ayre, who is the supporter of Craig Wright’s nChain implementation, posted a tweet opposing the opinion held by the Bitcoin ABC developers against Nakamoto Consensus. He stated:

“this is just retarded. Nakamoto Consensus will be proven to work and Dev’s will be forced to just watch…which is why they are trying to fool miners now. I will show them”

In the post published by, a question was asked by the Bitcoin ABC developers regarding their stance on the Nakamoto Consensus. The developers are believed to be against the Nakamoto consensus acting as the governance model for the BCH ecosystem after the upcoming fork. According to the team, the reason for this is that model can be used for a soft fork but not for a hard fork.

Conclusion by ABC developers | Source:

Conclusion by ABC developers | Source:

Many in the BCH community are expecting a hash war during the hard fork scheduled to take place in November. Regarding this, the developers stated that a hash war cannot be used to resolve an issue of such nature. Furthermore, a developer named Johnathan Toomim justified the statement and said that the hash rate distribution does not matter with hard forks with distinguished forking rule sets. This is because having separate forking rules leads to a persistent chain split, he mentioned.

Toomim also called the Nakamoto Consensus as ‘technically impossible’. He stated:

“whether or not we are willing to use Nakamoto consensus to resolve issues is not the issue right here. what the issue is, is that it is technically impossible.”

Amaury Sachet, a fellow developer also joined in and concluded that a set of incompatible forking rule sets will result in a permanent chain split. He added that the Nakamoto Consensus is misunderstood and requires to be re-read by the community.

Subscribe to AMBCrypto’s Newsletter

Follow us on Telegram | Twitter | Facebook

Priyamvada is a full-time journalist at AMBCrypto. A graduate in Journalism & Communication from Manipal University, she believes blockchain technology to be a revolutionary tool in advancing the future. Currently, she holds no value in cryptocurrencies.


BSV STN is mining 1.4-gigabyte blocks; Is this a scaling solution or a journey towards centralization?




Source: Unsplash

Bitcoin SV, the fork of Bitcoin Cash, has set up an STN [Scaling Test Network], specifically intended to test on-chain scaling for large blocks, which also acts as a standard network in the latest update of Bitcoin SV. It was noted that the STN was mining blocks that were more than 1 GB in block size, a development that was celebrated in the BSV camp after a Twitter user, @two2wheel2life, tweeted,

BSV has a total of four such networks defined, i.e., Mainnet, testnet, regtest, and STN. According to the website, STN was implemented to reduce the impact of scalability testing on testnet and to preserve testnet as a network for testing of applications built on top of Bitcoin SV, without requiring testnet users to make significant hardware available.

Block 11891 on the STN was 0.95 GB in size and processed a total of 9530 transactions in the block. Block 11901 was 1 GB in size, and block 11902 was 1.4 GB in size, which could possibly be the biggest block mined on the STN.


Is Bigger Better?

The question of bigger block sizes has sparked quite a few debates, be it Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, or Bitcoin SV. It was one of the reasons why Bitcoin Cash forked from Bitcoin and why Bitcoin SV forked from Bitcoin Cash.

However, does massive block size really solve the scaling problem without any drawbacks? The Operations Manager of STN, Brad Kristensen, had some interesting things to say to AMBCrypto about the recent achievements of the STN.

Brad stated,

“We’re very pleased with the results, and I think it’s a strong signal of what is to come from Bitcoin SV on mainnet as we continue to increase adoption. The STN is running the same public release available right now (0.2.0). Anyone can join the STN to test their applications /services.”

According to BSV’s roadmap, the first upgrade for the project will be ‘Quasar,’ which is proposed for July 24, 2019, and will concentrate on scaling by increasing the default block size hard cap.

Centralization or scaling?

Andreas Antonopoulos, a prominent Bitcoin advocate, had a different opinion on the rise in block size for Bitcoin SV. When AMBCrypto reached out to him, he commented,

“Large blocks have a centralizing effect on mining and node operators. It is unlikely that the main BTC chain will increase the blocksize as it has taken a different path for scaling, via layer-2 payment channels (Lightning Network) and on-chain optimizations (Segwit, Schnorr etc.).”

As stated by Antonopoulos at the ‘Bitcoins in Bali’ meetup on June 27, 2017, if the block size is increased in orders of magnitude at a rate that is proportional to the increase in user base, a difficult problem will emerge wherein Bitcoin transitions from a decentralized to a centralized system.

Additionally, Antonopoulos said,

“If my block takes 11 minutes to validate, then i’m off the blockchain, which means fewer people can validate independently, which means the system becomes centralized. With which one of these increases, fewer people can participate in the validation process, fewer people can participate in storing the data, and fewer people can participate in being independent actors. We go from a system that is decentralized to a system that gradually gets more and more centralized.”

The above gives a clear idea of what could happen if the block size increases. However, Craig Wright announced in one of his Medium articles of his plans to increase the block size, giving his opinion on the same,

“The reality is that scaling on-chain is much simpler than anyone likes to admit. There is nothing special to be done in order to achieve this, it is just allowing commercial systems to compete and to remove the false idea that home use and hobby nodes need to be subsidized”

So, how will BSV fare? Will it still be successful after implementing larger blocksize or will it accept the centralization that comes with increased block sizes? Only time will tell.

Subscribe to AMBCrypto’s Newsletter

Continue Reading