Trafficjunky

Bitcoin 'Breakthrough'


Some call it "breakthrough," others call it "network attack."

Such a prevailing opinion that led to a long wait for Mark Friedenbach's discussion of Bitcoin's Lime Growth, where Blockstream co-founder introduced for the first time "Forward Blocks," a proposal that future bitcoin changes - such as increasing block size or changing evidence work - it's easier to do.

This is a great statement that was surrounded by secrecy in the weeks leading up to the event, as it provokes fundamental perceptions that are widely distributed within the community of Bitcoins. The main among them is the claim that significant changes can make Bitcoin a compatible way, without the need for each user to upgrade their software.

One of the problems - the fact that many users of bitcoins use the protocol to obtain the kind of sovereignty over their money and that the mandatory software changes primarily affect that control - has long been a threat to the change of protocols, which appear to be the point of significant disruption that eventually led to the notorious network small stock.

In this way, Friedenbach's research responds to the long-term problem of cryptocurrency developers: how more significant changes need to made to a mass distributed system? Many claims that more radical change to Bitcoin and it should be, difficult to say that Bitcoin is decentralized and there is no "king," users should have the choice to adopt or reject changes,

Also, it was considered that some of the biggest changes in Bitcoin could only be with a "hard fork," unchanged changes, forcing all cryptocurrency users to get the change. Or, as Friedenbach argues, that was the case before "advanced blocks."

"Most of the discussion on the ladder is about how to make a hard sled safely, and when, if so, we should do it," Friedenbach told CoinDesku. However, with her new job, she says it's no longer a problem.



He said:

Advanced blocks make the argument useless. We do not need a hard toe to change bitcoin size if and when we decide to do it. This can be achieved as a sweet fork, as did SegWit. "

Friedenbach here claims that additional modifications to the bitcoin network, as used in upgrading bitcoins last year, could be used even for significant changes.



Make a mashup

Friedenbach is not particularly known in cryptic circles.

He left the position to develop space exploration applications in NASA to work full-time bitcoin and then worked on a theory that supports potentially big future bitcoin changes, such as improving smart deals so that users could perform more complex transactions and co-authored the original Blockstream a document on the side chains.

In addition to all this on his credit, it may not be surprising that he is interested in how to change the crypto value changes.

In reality, it is not about the size of the bitcoin block, but the utterly different code change that led Friedenbach to look at the idea: to change the algorithm of the bitcoin algorithm, which is generally considered a way of controlling those that provide the network with powerful computer hardware) in order to gather too much energy.

As ASICs entered a series of block chains that tried to resist them over the past year, many argued for a formal bitcoin change. For example, in the Sia community, users have recently decided, after several months of debate, to adopt a "kill switch" to remove current ASICs in power.

Programmers generally considered this tough to the only way to make that change, which made it particularly controversial. However, it turned out that the front blocks are also useful because they allow the consensus to change with a soft, not a heavy range.

So how do the blocks work before? In his new article, Friedenbach describes the change as a kind of blend of different types of forks.

"Although each of these approaches is unacceptable compromises, it is remarkable to note that the combination" nullifies "the most disadvantaged while retaining related well-being," the document says.

"The resulting scheme, held with the new innovative mechanism that we call blocks of concepts, is less complicated than we could imagine the suggestion of" all and sink ", continues.

Since this is a general upgrade - a way to change, it should be noted that the two upgrades Friedenbach emphasized - block sizes and proof of work - are not the only possible examples,

Friedenbach even says that the change method could be used to "divide" Bitcoin how would further change the size of the protocol, the concept that triggers the technique carried out at Ethereum.

(The document describes all these ideas, as well as how the following blocks work in more detail).

"Just Another Tool"?
However, although the document has not been fully presented until today, the discussions of social media were held before the conference. Some Bitcoin developers are much less enthusiastic.

"This is a network attack called upgrading," said CoinDesk, a long-time pseudonym binary developer, "Shinobimonkey." (In fact, he has sharp words for the Bitcoin Scaling conference where the paper was proposed in its entirety. "This event should be burned, mocked, and drowned in the tub," he said.

Adam Back, Executive Director of Blockstream, described this upgrade as an interesting upgrade, but maybe not so bad.

"I think it's okay, discovery mechanisms can be useful, and not to determine whether it's practical at the technical level and in terms of user consensus, it's just another tool for that," he said to CoinDesku

But the proposal has also attracted enthusiastic supporters. Karl-Johan Alm, an associate of Bitcoin Core, also described it as a "breakthrough" but said it is difficult to say whether he is currently using it in practice.

"Regardless of the outcome, options are opened to make things we did not think we could do before. What we do is a completely separate story," continued Alm.

Friedenbach does not necessarily advocate using bitcoin as well. Instead, he simply tries to point out that there is an option, opening up a broader discussion.

"Tools are not moral; they do not have a moral weight" good "or" bad. "They are easy: the way you use the tool is a question, as far as Bitcoin is concerned, this is not something I have an opinion about," Friedenbach CoinDesku said.

Time will tell if the bitcoin community thinks it is worth trying.

Friedenbach also plans to test the change to "Freicoin," a cryptocurrency project that he started a few years ago with a business model that is slightly different from bitcoin. And if the little community Freicoin decides to adopt, the upgrade method will be tested for the first time in nature.

Post a comment

1 Comments