Not exact matches
Former Bitcoin Core lead developer Gavin Andresen and Bitcoinj lead developer Mike Hearn, in particular,
believed that Bitcoin's 1 megabyte block size limit should be increased with a hard
fork, an incompatible protocol
change that would require almost the entire Bitcoin ecosystem to upgrade.
The Bitcoin community is split over an upcoming hard
fork intended to double the capacity of the network, and some
believe the
change amounts to a takeover of the protocol by corporations.
Coleman
believes that «from a technological perspective, there is nothing short of a hard
fork [a non-backward-compatible
change to the Ethereum protocol] to restore the destroyed funds.»
Called Segregated Witness, the proposal would, among other less publicized fixes, increase the blockchain's capacity four-fold without requiring a hard
fork that would
change bitcoin's consensus rules, a process that they
believe may be too risky at present.
Given that the issue has so often been termed the «block size debate» by the press, there is confusion as to whether Segregated Witness solves the scaling problem at all, or whether it's an attempt to put off a hard
fork - a
change that many in the industry
believe will eventually be needed given that the network only processes 1 MB of data roughly every 10 minutes.
Developers of bitcoin cash
believe Segwit was an unnecessary soft
fork and chose to split before the Segwit2x (BTC1) miners integrated the
change.
Developers in support of this new
change believe that reusing Bitcoin's license by other
forks is an attack on Bitcoin.
The issue with the pending
fork is some people
believe the
change does not have full consensus.
Tai
believes the way inevitable
forks and
changes are implemented will define bitcoin's social and cultural potential, regardless of each blockchain network's profitability after the dust settles.
Many BCH supporters
believe the upgrade will be smooth and successful like the hard
fork on November 13 that
changed the protocol difficulty adjustment algorithm.