While Pair admitted that “emergent consensus” is involved when making changes to Bitcoin’s consensus rules, he does not believe this process should play out on the blockchain. ![]() If activated, the implementation of Emergent Consensus would remove a hard cap on the size of blocks and have it set by participants on the network in real-time. “My sense is it’s not a good idea, and I would say it’s definitely not a good experiment to put on the Bitcoin blockchain.”īitcoin Unlimited’s concept of Emergent Consensus allows miners and users to signal their block size limit preference on the Bitcoin network. “We are very concerned about this concept of Emergent Consensus and Bitcoin Unlimited,” said Pair. The block size limit of one megabyte limits the number of transactions that can fit in each block. A new block is created by a bitcoin miner roughly every ten minutes. While in the past they believed this sort of system could have worked well, they now see the value in having a limit on the size of blocks on the network and allowing a fee market to develop.īitcoin blocks are where new transactions are stored on the blockchain. In his view, a non-contentious hard fork “should allow a very smooth transition from one set of consensus rules to a new set of consensus rules.”Īccording to Pair, one of the key areas where BitPay has changed its stance in terms of scaling Bitcoin has to do with the idea of entirely removing the block size limit. Pair added that a non-contentious hard fork would be a different situation. “So we don’t like a contentious hard fork, primarily for that reason.” “To just say that due to factors beyond our control we’re going to shut everything down and it may be minutes, hours even days before we can bring it back online - that’s awful,” explained Pair. Civic CEO and Gyft Co-Founder Vinny Lingham and others have argued that such a scenario would be disastrous for Bitcoin. In such a situation, Pair claimed the cheapest thing for BitPay to do would be to shut down their services and wait until the dust settles after the fork.Ī contentious hard fork has the potential to split the Bitcoin network into two separate digital currencies. “That’s not to say we don’t want to see Bitcoin grow and evolve and become better we absolutely do,” Pair later clarified.īitPay Does Not Want a Contentious Hard Forkĭuring the conversation on Let’s Talk Bitcoin!, Pair also shared BitPay’s operational playbook in regard to an attempted contentious hard fork of the Bitcoin network. Some would like to see the limit increased via a hard fork, while others see the risks associated with such a move as too costly. We don’t have to change one bit about Bitcoin to make that happen.”īitcoin’s block size limit has been a major area of contention on the scalability debate. “Sometimes we like to remind ourselves of that. ![]() “If Bitcoin did not change one bit - even kept the one-megabyte block size limit forever - we’ve got enough tools at our disposal that we can completely reshape the global payments system,” said Pair.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |