BitcoinZH Introduction: Chinese miners and interested parties have made a technical solution proposal to the block size debate. The proposal and responses are included below.

###Bitcoin community reaches 90/2 consensus: Supports 2MB blocks, rejects any fork with less than 90% consensus.

Author: ltc1btc mining pool founder, Jiang Zhou Er Declared Interests: Bitcoin / Litecoin mining, currency holder

China proposal to reconcile Bitcoin, Chinese text from 8btc

On the afternoon of the 1/23, on the coldest of days in Beijing, Haobtc organised a meeting to warm the spirits of the Bitcoin community through action. There was passionate discussion of issues including the development of Haobtc, expansion of block size, mining and the future prospects of Bitcoin.

Regarding block size, the participants reached consensus, and hope all Bitcoin companies and users will also join the consensus, around the following 90/2 proposal:

  1. Bitcoin block size needs to expand to 2MB.
  2. Opposition to any fork with under 90% consensus.

Meeting participants:

  • Haobtc CEO, Wu Gang
  • Bitmain CEO, Wu Ji Han
  • Antminer Pool, Pan Zhibiao
  • BTC123, Guo Hongcai
  • Richfund, Zhao Guofeng
  • Yunbi, Mr Mao
  • Bither, Wen Hao
  • BTCKan, Fang Fang
  • Sosobtc, Lin Jiapeng

(Excuse me if any of the numerous participants have not been included.)

###Consensus Solution

As we know, block size expansion is a technical issue, where personal interests have led to it becoming a political issue. For full background, please see the previous article, The Choices Facing Bitcoin Miners.

Yesterday’s Miami meeting didn’t lead to any substantive proposal or conclusions. As there is no consensus to fork to Classic, in order to a avoid division within the community we must put aside our differences and reach a more basic form of consensus. Core states that expansion without consensus is risky. If consensus is required, that’s what we’ll provide.

This consensus can obtain widespread unanimity, avoid division and bring reassurance to the market, and is flexible enough to be future-proofed.

90% consensus is sufficient to reject any potential community division and ensures security in the community will continue to develop.

Consensus around 2MB has its origins in Satoshi’s white paper - “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” - not A Peer-to-Peer Settlement System. According to Satoshi Nakamoto’s design, bitcoin is a currency and not a settlement system. 1MB is incapable of meeting the demands of a currency, and is even incapable of meeting the requirements of a settlement system (1MB = 7 transactions / second, SWIFT = 60 transactions / second).

We welcome all Bitcoin companies and users to add to this basic form of consensus. For example, during discussion the following proposal was suggested:

If blocks are full, block size still hasn’t been increased to 2MB and the Classic proposal still hasn’t achieved consensus, and if the condition of 90% consensus is met, in line with the block expansion contingency plan by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2010 ([PATCH] increase block size limit), change a single line of code in the current repo to increase 1MB to 2MB. This would dissipate the imminent danger and provide ample time for the community to discuss the merits of various proposals.

This, it must be accepted, is a simple proposal highly likely to gain widespread consensus. With this kind of feasible proposal, we can cause/force Core to actively settle the dispute.

###The Risks of SegWit

Core developers are attempting to use SegWit to indirectly increase capacity, but there are major problems and concealed security issues.

Firstly, if SegWit is used in 100% of all single-signature transactions, the maximum impact will be an increase to 1.6MB. Due to the complexity and enormous development work entailed by SegWit, it will be practically difficult for applications to update, and some may even be unwilling. If it is used in 50% of transactions, within 6-12 months we will have reached effective expansion to 1.3MB, which is quite insignificant.

Secondly, SegWit means a major revision of Bitcoin’s base logic, huge development work and a high level of risk. Under pressure from the community, Core developers have clearly been racing against the clock. Bitmain CEO, Wu Jihan, confirmed this saying:

Under the circumstances, Core developers have been working well over ten hours a day.

Many Bitcoin users come from a technical background. They know what kind of code is written under these circumstances of time pressure.

Contrary to the impression of Bitcoin as “stable and robust”, there have historically been several security issues. If SegWit is hastily implemented, should such security issues appear, Bitcoin’s value won’t just fluctuate by tens of dollars, it will be wiped out and the reputational damage will be long-lasting and nefarious.

Thus, it’s critical we prevent Core from hastily implementing SegWit.

###Consensus Actions

We will spare no efforts in asking other Bitcoin companies to join in this consensus.

We invite you to reply in the comments below [Editor’s note: 8btc.com comments, link at page head] indicating your support. Thanks everyone for supporting Bitcoin!

Further explanation: why 90% CPU consensus?

Because some miners do not belong to public pools (individuals or private pools), it’s difficult for this group to express their wishes.

Excluding this silent CPU and asking for 90% consensus is equivalent to asking for 95% consensus among all public pools.

China proposal to reconcile Bitcoin, response by 水无魂

###水无魂 Shui Wuhun:

I’m a bitcoin holder and user, and I support this consensus.

China proposal to reconcile Bitcoin, response by satoshi

###satoshi:

I’m a bitcoin holder and user, and I support this consensus.

China proposal to reconcile Bitcoin, response by 深水埗惊云

###深水埗惊云:

I’m a bitcoin holder and user, and I support this consensus.

China proposal to reconcile Bitcoin, response by bluestar

###bluestar:

What good news - as soon as it came out the price went straight up!

China proposal to reconcile Bitcoin, response by jb9082

###jb9082 [Editor’s note: this name is rude, isn’t Chinese subtle;)]:

Using Classic instead of Core is the most appropriate proposal. I’ve lost confidence in the Core team.

China proposal to reconcile Bitcoin, response by 莱特币矿池

###莱特币矿池 Litecoin Mining Pool:

Reply to jb9082 above:

If everyone agreed with Classic, then it’d be simple.

But Classic has issues with maturity and communication which led to some people opposing it.

Now perhaps a good outcome has occurred: Core persists in not making blocks bigger, then mining pools with the assent of the community and in line with Satoshi’s contingency plan, change one line of code to upgrade to 2MB.

Completely destroying this sole, central power of Core.

China proposal to reconcile Bitcoin, response by jb9082

###jb9082:

Reply to Litecoin Mining Pool above:

This is a good plan!

China proposal to reconcile Bitcoin, response by 恐龙化石

###恐龙化石 Dinosaur Fossil:

Reply to Litecoin Mining Pool above:

I agree!

Although Core have done a lot of work, they need to listen to the community more.

Chinese voices can’t be ignored!

In yesterday’s meeting, Core said there was insufficient consensus, but the last 2MB proposal has the support of a lot of companies, miners and exchanges.

Everyone agrees it must be on Core that the block size is expanded to 2MB.

China proposal to reconcile Bitcoin, response by yuli7376

###yuli7376:

“change a single line of code in the current repo to increase 1MB to 2MB”

Aren’t there issues with upgrading in this way? If it wouldn’t lead to any harmful consequences, then it’s not necessarily out of the question.

China proposal to reconcile Bitcoin, response by sider

###sider:

Only has support within China then.

I thought the whole Core team had all agreed to it.

China proposal to reconcile Bitcoin, response by sangzou

I support Bitcoin Core!

P.S. Hasn’t Wu Gang [Editor’s note: Haobtc CEO, Wu Gang] already supported Core? https://github.com/bitcoin-core/website/issues/50

China proposal to reconcile Bitcoin, response by sangzou

The community’s core devs have explained this issue very clearly: including Peter Todd, they have all signed in support of “Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system.”

Can I ask, for what reason do you not support them? From a technical point of view (serious).

Word of the Day

共识 | Gong Shi | Consensus

See something inaccurate? Let us know.