In a recent executive get together of Bitcoin startup miners and executives has resulted in a publication consisting of a new proposal, which outlines how an up-gradation of the open-source entity can boost greater transaction capacity. This proposal would make 2 major changes to the network and was recorded as an agreement. Over 50 companies signed for this agreement, garnering support of about 83 % of network miners.
First, it lowers the obstacles, especially complications pertaining to the initiation of the Segregated Witness, which is what the proposal highlights. The suggestions were brought up by core developers at Bitcoin. Second, it states that the signatories to the agreement would activate software which will increase the size of the Bitcoin block to 2 MB through a process called a hard fork.
Although many parties like Abra and BitPay are rendering engineering and technical support when it comes to these specific upgrades, Bitcoin’s core community for open-source development was visibly absent. Blockstream did not attend this meeting.
What is Different Now?
It was expressed at the meeting that the commitment would be real this time and that the business will not make the mistake of free-riding on Core. References were made to a 2016 agreement, which promised the activation of SegWit code and development of 2 MB hard fork in a certain time period, both these timelines were not met.
Who gets what?
Comments were made about the messy sociology behind the positioning, especially in the light that Bitcoin users have remained strongly entrenched along partisan lines. Many people were not sure about what the compromise was. It was noted that activating SegWit may not win over Bitcoin’s Core developers. A Bitcoin miner stated that the compromise was a result of necessity and eventually there may be no clear winners.
Will the Network Fork?
The agreement’s most contentious part is its commitment to get the hard fork in a specific time period. Some present at the meeting expressed skepticism with respect to the timeline element claiming that there are technical constraints on how quickly this solution could be tested. Similarly, others were worried that the 6 months timeline would not be sufficient for code development.
Action at any Cost
There was a widespread skepticism about the proposal that was expressed by Bitcoin community given that a number of scaling proposals in the past did not reach consensus. Others contended that at least it offers a path ahead.
Some participants were enthusiastic of the measure because of the perception that network fee are surging with the increasing use of Bitcoin Blockchain. Here, a number of perspectives diverged, the reason being the disagreement over how network’s economic costs should operate and who should be paying them.
Are Startup and Network needs the same?
There were also many comments that raised arguments on whether Bitcoin’s network should tailor itself to the needs of startups. Some were in strong support of this decision claiming that Bitcoin does support numerous voluminous transactions. Others disagreed and stated that they felt the strain of high transaction fee and making an upgrade would mean they will have no control over it.