Author: jl2012 at xbt.hk 2015-08-19 15:22:43
Published on: 2015-08-19T15:22:43+00:00
In 2015, a debate was sparked among the bitcoin community on the issue of the block size limit, which is set at 1 megabyte per block. The proposal to increase the limit was put forward in the form of BitcoinXT, which would have increased the block size limit to 8 megabytes. However, this proposal was met with opposition from some members of the community who saw it as a Schism hardfork. In response, a developer argued that BitcoinXT would not become a Schism hardfork and would only be successful if major exchanges, merchants, and investors supported it and requested miners to do the same. The adoption of BitcoinXT by miners alone would not lead to its success, as Chinese miners controlling 60% of the network had already said they would not adopt it. The key to success for BitcoinXT was the support of major exchanges, merchants, and investors. If these groups refused to accept or exchange tokens from the old chain after BIP101 was activated, miners in the old chain would soon realize the futility of their efforts and switch to the new chain or sell their ASIC. The creator of a spoof client called Not-Bitcoin-XT may stay anonymous, but miners cannot. As 95% of blocks come from known entities, they need to be responsible for their actions. If bitcoin is destroyed, their ASICs serve as nothing more than inefficient heaters. In conclusion, BIP101 had no effect on the biggest miners and did not destroy their investment. Miners could freely switch between forks, but they would always choose the most valuable fork, meaning only one fork would survive. The success of BitcoinXT relied heavily on the consensus of major exchanges, merchants, and investors. Without their support, it would have been unlikely to succeed.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T20:19:12.497359+00:00