[92 Consensus Reached at Cryptocurrency Circle Gathering] Support 2MB and Oppose Forks with a Consensus of Less Than 90% of Computing Power

On the afternoon of January 23, the coldest day in Beijing, Hao Bitcoin (haobtc.com) organized a lively cryptocurrency gathering. Participants had heated discussions on topics such as the development of Hao Bitcoin, Bitcoin block expansion, computing power mining, and the future prospects of Bitcoin.

On the issue of block size expansion, the participants reached the following consensus and hoped that all Bitcoin businesses and users would join this broad nine (90%) two (2MB) consensus:

1. Bitcoin needs to be expanded to 2MB.
2. Oppose forks with a consensus of less than 90% computing power.

The 2MB consensus originates from Satoshi Nakamoto’s white paper - “A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”, not “A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Settlement System”. According to Satoshi Nakamoto’s design, Bitcoin is a currency, not a settlement system. 1MB cannot meet the needs of a currency, or even the needs of a settlement system (1MB=7 transactions/second, SWIFT=60 transactions/second).

The 90% consensus is a firm resistance to any divisive behavior in the community and ensures the safety and sustainable development of the community.

Participants:
Good Bitcoin CEO Wu Gang, Super Bitcoin, Zongheng Sihai, Daxiong, etc. Bitmain CEO Wu Jihan Ant Mining Pool Pan Zhibiao Ant Miner Li Yingfei
Btc123 Guo Hongcai, Fuguo Fund, Zhao Guofeng, Yunbi, Laomao, Bitai Wallet, Wenhao Coin, Kanfangfang, Soso Bitcoin, Lin Jiapeng (There are many participants, please forgive me if there are any omissions)

【Consensus interpretation】

As we all know, this block expansion is no longer a technical issue, but a political issue caused by a conflict of interests. For the relevant background, please see the previous article: [Bitcoin faces a critical choice] We implore all coin holders to support the 2MB expansion https://www.bikeji.com/t/3149#reply55.

Yesterday's Miami Bitcoin Conference did not reach any substantive plans or conclusions. In order to avoid a split in the community, it is necessary to seek common ground while reserving differences and reach a more basic consensus. Core believes that expansion without consensus is risky and requires consensus, so we will give him a consensus. This consensus must be able to reach broad consensus, avoid division to appease the market, and be operable in the future.

Although the 92 Consensus is a very weak consensus and seems to be useless. But even with such a weak consensus, we have not reached a complete agreement. There are still many people in the circle who hold the view that "a 1MB settlement network is enough for Bitcoin." But after all, we have taken the first step forward and reached a consensus that even the settlement network needs 2MB. Another major disagreement on capacity expansion is that many cautious parties are unwilling to take the risk of controversial hard forks . Many people who oppose Classic are not against capacity expansion, but against controversial hard forks, especially risky hard forks that only reach 70% of the computing power. Through the 90% commitment, we have eliminated the cautious party's concerns and opposition to hard forks.

Therefore, 2MB and 90% have united more people, reached a broader consensus on expansion , and are expected to achieve more consensus after the situation develops (such as the block is completely full and a large number of transactions cannot be confirmed).

On top of this basic consensus, all Bitcoin companies and users are welcome to add other further views and solutions. For example, a good solution was proposed during the discussion at the party:

If the block is full and the Core solution has not been upgraded to 2MB and the Classic solution has not received widespread consensus, the community will support the mining pool to follow the block expansion plan given by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2010 ([PATCH] increase block size limit https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366 ) based on the 1992 Consensus and 90% computing power consensus. Based on the existing version, simply modify one line of code to upgrade 1MB to 2MB to solve the urgent problem and give the community more time to discuss the pros and cons of different solutions.
This is an excellent and simple solution that is most likely to reach a broad consensus. Only with such a final feasible solution can it be possible to promote (bi) (po) Core to actively reconcile.

Segregated Witness Risks

Core developers attempted to use Segregated Witness (segwit) to indirectly achieve the expansion effect, but this poses major problems and security risks.

First, when SegWit is used for 100% of single-signature transactions, it can only achieve a maximum expansion effect of 1.6MB. The complexity and huge development workload of SegWit make it difficult for other applications to update in a timely manner, or even unwilling to update. Assuming that 50% of transactions are used, it will take 6-12 months to achieve a 1.3MB expansion effect, which is meaningless.

Second, Segregated Witness has made a lot of changes to the underlying logic of Bitcoin, and the development workload is huge and dangerous. Under the pressure of community expansion, Core development is bound to be rushed. Bitmain CEO Wu Jihan also confirmed at yesterday's gathering that "Core development is rushed for more than ten hours a day." Many Bitcoin users are technically skilled, and everyone knows the quality of rushed code.

Unlike the "stable and reliable" Bitcoin that many people think of, Bitcoin has had many vulnerabilities in history ("Historical Vulnerabilities Disclosure" https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures ). For example, on August 15, 2010, hackers used an integer overflow vulnerability to swipe coins ("184.4 billion Bitcoins were once swiped out" http://8btc.com/thread-23642-1-1.html ).

The current "stability and reliability" of Bitcoin is the result of six years of continuous patching of vulnerabilities. If the Segregated Witness is launched in a hurry, once a similar serious vulnerability occurs, the price of the currency will not simply fluctuate by one or two hundred, but will be directly wiped out by a single digit, and will cause irreparable adverse effects on the reputation of Bitcoin in the long run . Therefore, it is very important to prevent Core from hastily launching the unverified Segregated Witness.

【Consensus Action】

We will do our best to invite Bitcoin businesses to join this basic consensus.
Please all Bitcoin users, reply to support this basic consensus, thank you.

Additional explanation: Why is it 90% computing power consensus?
Because some of the computing power is not in the public mining pool (solo mining or private pool), it is difficult for this part of the computing power to express its intention directly.
Removing this silent computing power and requiring a 90% computing power consensus actually means requiring a 95% public mining pool computing power consensus.

Author: Jiang Zhuoer from LiteBit Mining Pool

Reward address: 1G6fhQh194VQnMKhAZt4hV2VPhr7N8hvsb

Original URL: https://www.bikeji.com/t/3172

Coin Technology Review:

1. Litecoin Mining Pool_Jiang Zhuoer on 2016-01-25 01:34:46

   @kcb You should understand that it killed the last power center node of Bitcoin——Code

2. kcb on 2016-01-25 01:48:18

   @雷比特矿池_江卓尔 If you guys are really planning to go it alone, I strongly oppose it!

   A group of people who make mining machines suddenly said they want to maintain the source code of Bitcoin themselves? !

   It's like saying I'm an artist and suddenly I have to start doing cutting-edge mathematical research!

   Who would have believed that you could do better than Gavin and Jeff, experts who have been developing open source projects for a long time? !

   This is a joke!

   This proposal is totally unconvincing!

3. Litecoin Mining Pool_Jiang Zhuoer on 2016-01-25 03:01:32

   @kcb No maintenance, just solve the 2MB expansion, and incidentally solve the code centralization problem,
   We will slowly argue about it later. When the community reaches consensus on which solution, Core or Classic, we will switch to that solution.

4. kcb on 2016-01-25 03:45:43

   @Litebit Mining Pool_Jiang Zhuoer

   Does that mean we have to hard fork twice?

   It seems that the price of the currency is completely doomed in 2016.

   The focus on maintaining stability has actually created more uncertainty.

5. Shi Chenxi on 2016-01-25 06:40:01

   @kcb It's not hard forking twice. Just fork the core code, modify one line of code, and then push this modification to the core github code base. Faced with the facts, the core development team can only accept this push. Of course, this is only plan B.
   Plan A is already 90% certain.