Ryan X Charles, the CEO of Money Button and a Bitcoin Cash SV proponent, stated that he was against the Bitcoin Cash mandatory replay protection, in his latest Youtube video.
Recently, Calvin Ayre, the Founder of Ayre Group, spoke about the famous Bitcoin Cash hash war through a post on CoinGeek’s official portal. He claimed that Bitcoin Satoshi Vision [SV] is not the original Bitcoin Cash, whereas it is the original Bitcoin. He went on say that Bitcoin developers always tinkered the coin to death because of the Bitcoin Segwit fork and abandonment of the Nakamoto consensus and betraying the trust of the miners by the ABC team.
This was followed by Ayre stating that CoinGeek wants a permanent split by the chains by the ABC team by enacting replay protection. He also added that they do not want the Bitcoin Cash ticker symbol.
Charles stated that it he is anti-mandatory replay protection as it is “very disruptive” to the network. He also stated that the key value proposition of Bitcoin SV is that it is a stable protocol and that even though it is not equivalent to the original Bitcoin protocol, it “extremely close” and that this will be damaged by the replay protection.
The CEO of Money Button said:
“You don’t need mandatory replay protection. If you want replay protection, this is an example of a problem that can be solved with Bitcoin already. You can do voluntary replay protection […] and voluntary split.”
He went on to say that this could be done in two ways. The first way, according to him, is that people can use the existing spit coin, adding that all the new coins that miners are mining is split. Charles stated:
“So you can distribute split dust to people for instance or people can pay for you can build it into a third party service or who knows what you use that existing split coin to combine with your wallet you spend from it you merge that with your other UTXOs. You now have split coin. you take the other coin that’s not you know sort of you know a valid transaction on the other network on ABC and you can recover your ABC coin that’s one way to do it”
Charles further stated that people can also split their coins themselves by using the new opcode, like OpMul wherein people can make transactions that is valid only on Bitcoin SV and not valid on Bitcoin Cash ABC bad split their coins.
Subscribe to AMBCrypto’s Newsletter
BSV STN is mining 1.4-gigabyte blocks; Is this a scaling solution or a journey towards centralization?
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,
So the #BSV test network mined 6 blocks over 1GB 👀
Two of them were 1.4GB & one of these contained 359,793 transactions! Check out https://t.co/tArDkAwpFR
Just wait until this is happening on main net! 🙂
Are you paying attention yet??#BSV is #Bitcoin #CraigisSatoshi
— Conor McGee – $two2wheel2life (@two2wheel2life) May 22, 2019
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.
“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
Binance CEO CZ accused of causing ‘pump and dump’ by prominent trader after being blocked on Twitter
Ethereum [ETH] and Tron [TRX] Price Analysis: Coins suffer as bears push bulls aside
Bitcoin [BTC]: Strongest reason for price rise is evolution of different players coming in, says ErisX CEO
HitBTC insolvency brought into question as new research points to red flags
OKEx provides new futures trading upgrade for XRP, Bitcoin Cash [BCH] and Litecoin [LTC]
Tron [TRX] announces future trading on OKEx platform from May 20
Bitcoin’s [BTC] Lightning Network is awesome, says Blockstream’s Samson Mow
Crypto is replacing the US Dollar and no one seems to be noticing, claims prominent investor Robert Kiyosaki
Coinbase extends XRP trading access to New York users; coin pumps by 22%
Litecoin [LTC] bought at $100k on Binance when coin was trading at $90
XRP/Ripple: R3’s Corda to further partnership with credit-union centric CULedger
Bitcoin? Bitcoin Cash? Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision? Will the real Bitcoin please stand up?
Bitcoin SV drops by a massive 24% in an hour after Bitcoin whitepaper patent backlash
Ripple executive elected to United States Faster Payment Council’s Board of Directors