Author: Eric Lombrozo 2016-01-29 00:52:53
Published on: 2016-01-29T00:52:53+00:00
The current situation with forks in the Bitcoin network could have been avoided if there was a better process to distinguish between different layers for bitcoin modification proposals. Mike Hearn proposed BIP64, which did not affect the consensus layer, but many Core developers disliked the idea and gave pushback. This caused Mike to break off from Core and create XT as the applications he was developing required BIP64 to work. Gavin then teamed up with him and created big block ideas. A process is needed that distinguishes these different layers and allows more freedom in the upper layers while requiring agreement at the consensus layer. Many fork proposals conflate different features, only some of which would actually be consensus layer changes. When people proposing nonconsensus features get pushback from Core developers, they feel rejected and are likely to team up with others trying to push for hard forks. Eric had submitted a BIP - BIP123 - that addresses this issue. He updated it to include all the currently proposed and accepted BIPs and has submitted a PR, urging everyone to seriously consider getting this BIP accepted as a top priority before more projects try their hand at stuff without understanding these critical distinctions.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T03:25:38.585044+00:00