4 key differences between Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Core

Bitcoin Core contributor彼得•托德was recently interviewed by The Bitcoin Game. As a long-time Bitcoin developer and researcher, Todd pointed out four key differences between Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Core in how they view this peer-to-peer digital cash system.

Many people think that the debate between Classic and Core is just a technical debate, but in Todd's opinion, the two camps seem to have two completely different plans for the future of Bitcoin.

Todd said:

“I think these two groups of developers have very different views on how the Bitcoin system works and what the goals of the Bitcoin project are. This inevitably leads to a lot of friction.”

The different philosophical views held by Classic and Core are the root of all disputes.

1. Balancing decentralization and efficiency

In general, the core of the debate between Classic and Core is "decentralization vs. efficiency." The Classic team prefers to increase the system resource requirements for running a full node, while the Core team hopes to maintain a low upper limit while running a full node.

Todd cited Classic developer Gavin Andresen as an example, saying:

“Gavin wants people to make the trade-off that if you want a cheaper system, you have to accept the result that the system is more centralized.”

Todd also noted that Andresen has said that early adopters of Bitcoin may be disappointed with what the system ultimately became.

Classic supporters believe that in the long run, Classic's views are more beneficial to the decentralization of Bitcoin, but this has led to a debate between the two sides on the next issue.

2. Maintaining the decentralization of Bitcoin’s base layer

Todd said the real debate is about how to achieve decentralization, not which side supports more centralization.

Todd explained Bitcoin Core’s perspective on this:

“I think what’s really different about Bitcoin Core is that the Core developers understand that there are tradeoffs to be made, and they’re willing to make those tradeoffs at different levels. And I’d rather make that balance at the Bitcoin blockchain level, which is the base layer, and keep that base layer highly decentralized. Maybe it becomes expensive to use it directly, but you balance that by putting the inevitable decentralization at a higher level.”

People who support the Core ethos often say that they would rather build a centralized layer on top of a decentralized base layer, because you can't build a decentralized layer on top of a centralized layer. Previously, Bitcoin Core contributor Eric Lombrozo explained that Bitcoin needs multiple protocol layers.

While centralized layers of off-chain Bitcoin transactions already exist (such as Circle, Coinbase, and any other Bitcoin exchange), Core hopes that less centralized systems such as the Lightning Network can provide an acceptable compromise solution. Compared to the trustless miners of the Bitcoin network, nodes on the Lightning Network require more trust, but these nodes cannot steal users' funds. The Lightning Network mainly expands the Bitcoin blockchain through the use of smart contracts, enabling fast small transactions.

Mike Hearn, a former Bitcoin XT developer, and Chris Pacia, a developer at OpenBazaar, have both written about some of the problems with the Lightning Network. One of the main criticisms of the Lightning Network from Classic supporters is that it will become increasingly centralized and easily become a means for governments to censor transactions.

Whether this will become a practical problem is unclear, but Lightning Network developers are working on Tor-style onion routing capabilities for the system. The developers behind this possible extension of the Bitcoin blockchain must understand the importance of protecting privacy.

3. What is Classic’s long-term plan?

Todd said that if Classic doesn’t consider the Lightning Network as a potential option, then they need to explain how they will scale the Bitcoin network.

He said:

We can't scale the Bitcoin network by continuously increasing the block limit, but I don't see any limitation in Classic in this regard. So I'd like to know what your long-term plans are?

Gavin Andre said that 12 months after the first possible hard fork of Classic, another hard fork might be needed. To this, Todd said:

“I think Core will be more focused on thinking about how to solve problems on a protocol level that fits in the bitcoin layer so that we don’t have to make those hard choices again 12 months from now.”

In other words, Core realizes that scaling the Bitcoin network requires solutions like the Lightning Network, and that simply raising the block limit will not fundamentally solve the problem in the long run. Core believes that the Lightning Network (or some other off-chain protocols) is the best path for the Bitcoin ecosystem to continue to move forward, because in Core's view, so many transactions on the chain will hinder the expansion of the Bitcoin network. This shows that the two sides have differences on whether the Bitcoin network should be used as a settlement system.

4. Accept the fact that Bitcoin is scalable

The vast majority of Bitcoin Core developers and contributors view Bitcoin as a settlement system because they accept the fact that in its current form, the Bitcoin network is not scalable enough to be adopted by the mainstream market. Todd said this is a harsh reality:

You have to accept that the system doesn't scale and think of other smarter ways to do it. Every time you increase the block limit, you are making the system more centralized.

Classic and Core have completely different views on how the Bitcoin network works, so it is not difficult to understand why the Bitcoin community is split.

Todd said:

“It’s not necessarily about who’s right or wrong, but Gavin wasn’t interested in the system that I was interested in designing.”

Original article: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/four-key-disagreements-between-bitcoin-classic-and-bitcoin-core-four-key-disagreements
By Kyle Torpey
Translator: printemps
Editor: printemps
Source (translation): Babbitt Information (http://www.8btc.com/four-key-disagreements)