Author: Btc Drak 2017-01-07 21:15:11
Published on: 2017-01-07T21:15:11+00:00
Bitcoin Classic, the hard fork of Bitcoin, has recently adopted a new set of hard fork rules without a written specification. This lack of documentation makes it difficult for users to know what has changed and for developers to assess the software. In contrast, Bitcoin Core always releases extensive release notes with a full changelog for each version. Additionally, consensus rule change proposals follow the BIPs process, which allows for ecosystem-wide coordination and peer review. Releasing hard fork software without community-wide consensus and clear labeling as such is considered dangerous and irresponsible. While there's nothing inherently wrong with hard forks, proper communication and documentation are crucial. Bitcoin Classic version 1.2.0 is now available, marking a change in strategy for the software. It moves from a conservative block size proposal based on compromise to one where Classic truly innovates and provides a long-term solution for the market to choose. The most visible change is the decentralized block size solution where node operators decide on the maximum size. Bitcoin Classic aims to provide users with a high-quality validating node for a large set of use cases. The release includes various projects with the beta label, which people can use as an on-ramp to Bitcoin. These projects will need to be enabled in the config by those who want to test them. However, concerns have been raised about Bitcoin Classic's lack of community-wide consensus and clear labeling as a hard fork on mainnet with no safe activation. The announcement did not inform people correctly about the contents or risks, and there were no release notes or changelog on Github to help users understand what had changed. Johnson Lau previously released a hard fork client testnet that was clearly labeled. Bitcoin software vendors should take great pains to document features and changes from version to version, allowing for re-implementation and acting as part of the consensus building and peer review process.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T21:06:01.323648+00:00