Author: Benjamin 2015-06-16 09:21:11
Published on: 2015-06-16T09:21:11+00:00
The conversation revolves around the issue of scaling Bitcoin. One person expresses their long-term objective on the matter, but there seems to be a divide among individuals regarding whether or not they want to scale Bitcoin. Some believe that it is a technological dead end and want to force end users out in order to incentivize the creation of an alternative while claiming it is still Bitcoin, despite the fact that existing wallets and services would not work in this scenario.In response to Adam Back's questions, Hearn explains that if Bitcoin runs out of capacity, it will break, and many users will leave. All wallet developers (except Lawrence), major exchanges, payment processors, and many major mining pools want to see the limit lifted. This notion that change has no consensus is inaccurate, according to Hearn, as only a small number of people have been ignoring highly technical and passionate developers who have built up the Bitcoin user base and designed hardware and software.The Bitcoin protocol has no definitions about developer consensus, and voting is not a perfect mechanism. A proposed hardfork vote would require each party to lay out a long-term plan and proposal. Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen do not have plans to implement new scaling facilities, and Lightning is not a coherent proposal. The fork battle would not be part of a BIP process, but rather a vote on a long-term plan/architecture.Overall, this conversation highlights the ongoing debate and differing perspectives surrounding the future of Bitcoin and how best to scale it. One side advocates for forcing end users out to incentivize the creation of an alternative, while the other side argues that scaling can only be achieved by letting Bitcoin grow and tackling bottlenecks as they arise at the appropriate times.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T23:16:38.662815+00:00