Bitcoin, bitcoin cash and bitcoin sv: a brief history of encrypting virtual human
With bitcoin back in the spotlight, Craig Wright has been on the legal stage, and recently bitcoin's old rivals have proliferated: bitcoin and its bifurcated brothers, bitcoin cash and bitcoin SV.
For those unfamiliar with cryptocurrencies, the fierce divisions between these camps can be hard to understand. What's the cause of all the constant irritation and pain between these communities?
This conflict can be traced back to the original intention of the bitcoin white paper originally conceived by the mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto, whose identity is still unknown (yes, unknown).
Satoshi envisioned a kind of point-to-point e-cash that would avoid such widespread corruption and manipulation when the economy collapsed in 2008 through decentralization and value mistrust transactions. Since then, it has led to the emergence of "quantitative easing" policies on a global scale, which are considered to be a potential source of inflationary potential because they are entirely based on the concept of printing more and more money.
This is the core of the conflict. Bitcoin, as the original idea to solve the problem of corruption, centralization and manipulation, has been in the minds of many people in all aspects of the problem._DJMINER
Bitcoin, which is trying to scale up and be used as an effective trading tool, hit the wall in 2017. Critics worry that bitcoin is becoming too popular for its own good. It risks not being able to cope with the surge in popularity, which can lead to congested memory pools and high fees. Of course, there are grounds for these concerns, as bitcoin did struggle under the pressure of its newly discovered popularity later that year.
As bitcoin networks strive to meet extreme needs, some are trying to see the understanding of bitcoin more as a value store than it does. Money can be stored in bitcoin as securely as a digital vault, only when people want to withdraw more money. Activities such as buying $2 coffee are simply impractical because the transaction costs much more than the coffee itself and can take hours to complete. For example, a "lighter" coin like litecoin can meet the need to trade value more efficiently and cheaply, at least until the bitcoin network has successfully expanded to cope with the increase in demand. Many people object to the idea because it goes against the original vision of point-to-point e-cash, which requires key features that are cheap and easy to carry.
Considering this scalability problem, the developers put forward a solution. One idea is to increase the size of each block. The advantage of this solution is that all transactions will remain "on the chain" because they will not be offloaded into another mechanism that requires a certain degree of trust (at least in the minds of some in the community). This is a key element of Satoshi's original vision, based on the support of "people on the chain".
Some rejected the larger idea, fearing that it would lead to greater concentration. Due to the increased memory requirements for maintaining the entire blockchain with larger chunks, operations to operate nodes and validate transactions will be reserved for only a few. The concept of resistance to centralization is another element of Satoshi's original vision, and it is difficult to resolve this conflict through "on chain" solutions.
Another proposed solution is called "isolated witness" (or "isolated witness"); a solution that can reduce the need for a comparison token chain by isolating transaction signatures. This solution greatly improves the transaction capability of bitcoin in terms of speed and throughput, but it really starts to shine only after it is adopted more widely. Segwit also offers more possibilities for second tier solutions and smart contracts linked to bitcoin networks.
This is where things get really interesting. Since segwit has been successfully implemented through user activated soft fork (uasf), the backup blockchain will be put aside through hard fork in case of problems. Now, this "backup" is essentially a bitcoin cash blockchain. This non segregated witness "contingency plan" is a controversial decision in itself, which has attracted the attention of many people in the bitcoin community and provided an opportunity for competitors of segregated witness to withdraw from the expected upgrade.
However, the upcoming block size growth has encountered significant differences. Two camps appeared. Some support block size increases, while others insist on segwit, off chain upgrades, and smaller block sizes. Proponents of larger block solutions resist the notion of relying on second tier solutions and off chain networks, which they see as a departure from the original idea of bitcoin. By relying on the layer that may need trust in theory, the original bitcoin blockchain does not need trust at all, so the big block supporters are very dissatisfied with the proposed solution. In anticipation of the controversial "escalation", there was a heated debate and controversy._DJMINER
As a result, there is a huge bifurcate of bitcoin. It's true that bitcoin's bifurcations have occurred in the past, but none of them are so large in terms of community division, and none of them have caused so much controversy.
Now, there are two very unstable and divergent bitcoin blockchains, which is the real embodiment of Nakamoto's vision: bitcoin or "bitcoin core", as some people in the big block camp like to call it, and the newly issued cash supporters of bitcoin recognize this new coin as "real" bitcoin.
On the other hand, those who support the segwit enabled bitcoin blockchain sometimes derisively call bitcoin cash bcash to reduce its connection with the original nomenclature. The naming debate continues to this day and is often seen in angry and dismissive twitter and reddit clips between different parties.
There is uncertainty about which version of bitcoin will retain the name of "bitcoin" in the exchange. The block chain with segwit enabled will eventually win, and "bitcoin cash" will get its own BCH code (because BCC was acquired by bitconnect). All bitcoin wallets receive a 1:1 split of bitcoin cash._DJMINER
Confusion continues
Many well-known members of the bitcoin community are in large camps, leading to messy divorces. Since the fork, R / BTC subreddit was created in late 2016 to evade scrutiny of large blockers and is now almost entirely focused on bitcoin cash. The @ bitcoin handle on twitter fully supports bitcoin cash, although the account recently mysteriously dropped it.
Bitcoin.com, owned by Roger ver, the chief BCH supporter, is the bitcoin Cash website, while bitcoin.org is BTC centric. The failure to change the nickname demonstrates the community's firm belief that bitcoin cash is "real" bitcoin and, because of its deceptiveness, only fuels the fire.
Last year, bitcoin cash itself split into two blockchains, further increasing the fragmentation of bitcoin cash network. One chain remains as the bitcoin cash fork, and the other is called bitcoin SV or Satoshi vision. Dissatisfied with the bitcoin cash solution, this further branch aims to bring bitcoin back to its original design and increase the ability to handle huge blocks to maintain a high throughput pure "on chain" network. After spending millions of dollars in a highly centralized hash war for hegemony, bitcoin Sv (BSV) failed to see the same degree of success or adoption among encrypted users and traders.
Since the early days of the existence of bitcoin cash network, the influence of bitcoin itself has become more and more dominant, and the significance and use of bitcoin cash has been weakened. Part of the reason is that bitcoin has a huge advantage in hashing capability, which has higher network security and transaction utilization rate than bitcoin cash network. Even dogecoin, originally a joking currency, has taken more action and has more active addresses than bitcoin cash. Bitcoin's segwit solution has successfully reduced transaction costs and memory pool load, and its charging revenue has greatly exceeded that of its competitors._DJMINER
Safety suffered
Although bitcoin cash is still cheap in terms of transaction costs, it fails to overcome the expensive bitcoin network and thus reduces security. For example, a 51% attack on bitcoin cash for an hour costs only $72000, while the same attack against bitcoin costs about $550000. Bitcoin SV is even less vulnerable and has a lower hash rate than bitcoin and bitcoin cash networks. This makes the issue of dual payment using bitcoin cash or SV more worrying than using bitcoin network, so more confirmation is needed before ensuring the legitimacy of the transaction. Although only a few miners have successfully restructured the bitcoin cash blockchain, and recently saw a miner threatening to control the whole network with 51% hashing ability, the same attack of bitcoin will not be possible.
As institutions continue to compete, bitcoin will play a leading role, while competitors such as bitcoin cash and bitcoin SV strive to achieve almost the same level of respect and practicality in the larger community. The trading volume on BCH is very low, which makes the block size growth completely irrelevant, and the lower price means the lack of network security. With few other services offered by competitors, bitcoin seems destined to remain dominant. At the end of the day, it seems that you've got the fee to pay._DJMINER
For those unfamiliar with cryptocurrencies, the fierce divisions between these camps can be hard to understand. What's the cause of all the constant irritation and pain between these communities?
This conflict can be traced back to the original intention of the bitcoin white paper originally conceived by the mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto, whose identity is still unknown (yes, unknown).
Satoshi envisioned a kind of point-to-point e-cash that would avoid such widespread corruption and manipulation when the economy collapsed in 2008 through decentralization and value mistrust transactions. Since then, it has led to the emergence of "quantitative easing" policies on a global scale, which are considered to be a potential source of inflationary potential because they are entirely based on the concept of printing more and more money.
This is the core of the conflict. Bitcoin, as the original idea to solve the problem of corruption, centralization and manipulation, has been in the minds of many people in all aspects of the problem._DJMINER
Bitcoin. Always bitcoin.
Bitcoin, which is trying to scale up and be used as an effective trading tool, hit the wall in 2017. Critics worry that bitcoin is becoming too popular for its own good. It risks not being able to cope with the surge in popularity, which can lead to congested memory pools and high fees. Of course, there are grounds for these concerns, as bitcoin did struggle under the pressure of its newly discovered popularity later that year.
As bitcoin networks strive to meet extreme needs, some are trying to see the understanding of bitcoin more as a value store than it does. Money can be stored in bitcoin as securely as a digital vault, only when people want to withdraw more money. Activities such as buying $2 coffee are simply impractical because the transaction costs much more than the coffee itself and can take hours to complete. For example, a "lighter" coin like litecoin can meet the need to trade value more efficiently and cheaply, at least until the bitcoin network has successfully expanded to cope with the increase in demand. Many people object to the idea because it goes against the original vision of point-to-point e-cash, which requires key features that are cheap and easy to carry.
Considering this scalability problem, the developers put forward a solution. One idea is to increase the size of each block. The advantage of this solution is that all transactions will remain "on the chain" because they will not be offloaded into another mechanism that requires a certain degree of trust (at least in the minds of some in the community). This is a key element of Satoshi's original vision, based on the support of "people on the chain".
Some rejected the larger idea, fearing that it would lead to greater concentration. Due to the increased memory requirements for maintaining the entire blockchain with larger chunks, operations to operate nodes and validate transactions will be reserved for only a few. The concept of resistance to centralization is another element of Satoshi's original vision, and it is difficult to resolve this conflict through "on chain" solutions.
Another proposed solution is called "isolated witness" (or "isolated witness"); a solution that can reduce the need for a comparison token chain by isolating transaction signatures. This solution greatly improves the transaction capability of bitcoin in terms of speed and throughput, but it really starts to shine only after it is adopted more widely. Segwit also offers more possibilities for second tier solutions and smart contracts linked to bitcoin networks.
This is where things get really interesting. Since segwit has been successfully implemented through user activated soft fork (uasf), the backup blockchain will be put aside through hard fork in case of problems. Now, this "backup" is essentially a bitcoin cash blockchain. This non segregated witness "contingency plan" is a controversial decision in itself, which has attracted the attention of many people in the bitcoin community and provided an opportunity for competitors of segregated witness to withdraw from the expected upgrade.
However, the upcoming block size growth has encountered significant differences. Two camps appeared. Some support block size increases, while others insist on segwit, off chain upgrades, and smaller block sizes. Proponents of larger block solutions resist the notion of relying on second tier solutions and off chain networks, which they see as a departure from the original idea of bitcoin. By relying on the layer that may need trust in theory, the original bitcoin blockchain does not need trust at all, so the big block supporters are very dissatisfied with the proposed solution. In anticipation of the controversial "escalation", there was a heated debate and controversy._DJMINER
Then there are two
As a result, there is a huge bifurcate of bitcoin. It's true that bitcoin's bifurcations have occurred in the past, but none of them are so large in terms of community division, and none of them have caused so much controversy.
Now, there are two very unstable and divergent bitcoin blockchains, which is the real embodiment of Nakamoto's vision: bitcoin or "bitcoin core", as some people in the big block camp like to call it, and the newly issued cash supporters of bitcoin recognize this new coin as "real" bitcoin.
On the other hand, those who support the segwit enabled bitcoin blockchain sometimes derisively call bitcoin cash bcash to reduce its connection with the original nomenclature. The naming debate continues to this day and is often seen in angry and dismissive twitter and reddit clips between different parties.
There is uncertainty about which version of bitcoin will retain the name of "bitcoin" in the exchange. The block chain with segwit enabled will eventually win, and "bitcoin cash" will get its own BCH code (because BCC was acquired by bitconnect). All bitcoin wallets receive a 1:1 split of bitcoin cash._DJMINER
Confusion continues
Many well-known members of the bitcoin community are in large camps, leading to messy divorces. Since the fork, R / BTC subreddit was created in late 2016 to evade scrutiny of large blockers and is now almost entirely focused on bitcoin cash. The @ bitcoin handle on twitter fully supports bitcoin cash, although the account recently mysteriously dropped it.
Bitcoin.com, owned by Roger ver, the chief BCH supporter, is the bitcoin Cash website, while bitcoin.org is BTC centric. The failure to change the nickname demonstrates the community's firm belief that bitcoin cash is "real" bitcoin and, because of its deceptiveness, only fuels the fire.
Last year, bitcoin cash itself split into two blockchains, further increasing the fragmentation of bitcoin cash network. One chain remains as the bitcoin cash fork, and the other is called bitcoin SV or Satoshi vision. Dissatisfied with the bitcoin cash solution, this further branch aims to bring bitcoin back to its original design and increase the ability to handle huge blocks to maintain a high throughput pure "on chain" network. After spending millions of dollars in a highly centralized hash war for hegemony, bitcoin Sv (BSV) failed to see the same degree of success or adoption among encrypted users and traders.
Since the early days of the existence of bitcoin cash network, the influence of bitcoin itself has become more and more dominant, and the significance and use of bitcoin cash has been weakened. Part of the reason is that bitcoin has a huge advantage in hashing capability, which has higher network security and transaction utilization rate than bitcoin cash network. Even dogecoin, originally a joking currency, has taken more action and has more active addresses than bitcoin cash. Bitcoin's segwit solution has successfully reduced transaction costs and memory pool load, and its charging revenue has greatly exceeded that of its competitors._DJMINER
Safety suffered
Although bitcoin cash is still cheap in terms of transaction costs, it fails to overcome the expensive bitcoin network and thus reduces security. For example, a 51% attack on bitcoin cash for an hour costs only $72000, while the same attack against bitcoin costs about $550000. Bitcoin SV is even less vulnerable and has a lower hash rate than bitcoin and bitcoin cash networks. This makes the issue of dual payment using bitcoin cash or SV more worrying than using bitcoin network, so more confirmation is needed before ensuring the legitimacy of the transaction. Although only a few miners have successfully restructured the bitcoin cash blockchain, and recently saw a miner threatening to control the whole network with 51% hashing ability, the same attack of bitcoin will not be possible.
As institutions continue to compete, bitcoin will play a leading role, while competitors such as bitcoin cash and bitcoin SV strive to achieve almost the same level of respect and practicality in the larger community. The trading volume on BCH is very low, which makes the block size growth completely irrelevant, and the lower price means the lack of network security. With few other services offered by competitors, bitcoin seems destined to remain dominant. At the end of the day, it seems that you've got the fee to pay._DJMINER
评论
发表评论