Bitcoin core developer: Segregated verification is the safest and most reliable option for expansion

It has nothing to do with the economy.

Alex Petrov, a computer technology expert at Bitfury, said this in response to Bitcoiner Roger Ver’s comments on Bitcoin protocol changes.

You can have different economic opinions and support other economic factions, but soft forks and hard forks are about software. Forks are a way to provide new solutions to the community. Soft forks are new regulations for certain established behaviors, which can activate new functions once consensus is reached. Hard forks are more complicated and require you to update the software of countless computers at the same time.

Petrov made the comments after listening to a discussion between Bitcoin core developers and Ver, a long-time Bitcoin enthusiast who is influential in the cryptocurrency community, particularly for his anarcho-capitalist ideas.

Petrov further stated that the implementation of a Bitcoin hard fork is more complicated.

You have to decide on a specific time before you switch software versions. If you don't do proper testing and there is no reasonable coordination process (it is likely to fail). The coordination process usually takes a lot of time, at least 5-6 months, because all Bitcoin companies should test and update software. They should update cold wallets and hardware wallets, rewrite the firmware in hardware wallets, and most importantly, notify users of wallet updates.

Mr. Petrov said:

At a certain time, everyone must switch to the new version of the software. The Bitcoin network operates 24 hours a day to cater to the needs of its global users and confirm transactions simultaneously. Therefore, hard forks are very complicated. If they cannot be synchronized or not fully tested, hard forks will cause a lot of problems such as double spending.

The potential challenges that a hard fork poses to the Bitcoin system are fatal.

The process of hard fork execution, that is, the process of switching software versions, is likely to create opportunities for improper behaviors such as double spending.

Core developer Eric Lombrozo believes that a hard fork is possible, but "the security issues that come with it must be resolved. If there are major security issues, everyone should be involved."

But he believes that coordinating a hard fork is difficult:

It is difficult to get everyone to switch to a new client. From the current state of the network, a hard fork is still possible; but as the network grows and the number of users increases, the coordination difficulty will only increase. If the hard fork is controversial, some users may refuse to switch software. Inconsistency in nodes can easily destroy the entire network.

Lombrozo said that most of the internal discussions at Bitcoin Core last year revolved around the Bitcoin protocol:

We have an internal mailing list, and most of the emails last year were related to block capacity expansion, including how to expand safely, the possibility of expansion, etc.

For example, Pieter Wuille submitted an improved protocol that can expand capacity by 17% each year. Many people are committed to finding expansion solutions, and various concepts are flying around - but there is still no way to successfully reach a consensus, and there is no reliable way to ensure that other problems will not arise.

In comparison, isolated verification, a soft fork expansion solution for Bitcoin, is already the best option.

…Isolated verification can achieve maximum on-chain expansion without a hard fork, while also supporting a large number of off-chain applications.

Currently, Isolation Verification has received 25% of the computing power support. Lombrozo said:

After a lot of research, SegWit is the best option at the moment. It can double the network capacity and open up many additional use cases.

Hard fork supporters believe that the community should treat the solutions provided by Bitcoin Unlimited or Bitcoin Classic fairly. However, Core developers believe that this is a dangerous proposal that is likely to cause a fatal blow to the success of Bitcoin.

Phil Potter, chief security officer at bitcoin exchange Bitfinex, said:

…As we have discussed before, a hard fork without consensus is very dangerous unless we have thoroughly studied the scientific and engineering issues and are 100% sure of the safety of the hard fork. The deployment of a hard fork should not be just for the purpose of expansion. There is still a lot for us to discuss and solve.