Last week, when the "fork" occurred and Bitcoin XT was put in place as a consensus mechanism, an abundance of attention was given to an ongoing debate regarding the matter.
In case you've been living under a rock, the fork is basically a new revision of the software program that makes Bitcoin and the Blockchain possible and was made available so that miners could decide to either adopt it by way of implementation, or wait for another solution to be presented.
The revision is a proposed solution to potential problem that may occur as early as late next year, that being a block size restriction that can become an issue. Like any proposed solution to any problem there are those who agree, and those who do not, so debate is sometimes necessary to discuss the pros and cons of a given proposal.
The debate regarding Bitcoin XT was catapulted into mainstream media last week (into this week) and not in a delightful way unless you are of the opinion Bitcoin sucks.
What we ended up with were some rather overstated facts and exaggerated scenarios preaching doom, gloom, destruction, and even nuclear war.
We've collected a list of the 10 biggest overstatements by these various outlets.
The Top 10
10 - "Bitcoin Price Drops on Block-Size Debate, 'Flash Crash" -The Wall Street Journal
This headline annoyed me the least, part in that is has merit, and part in that I agree.
We reported this as well. It's not definitive, but credible.
We reported this as well. It's not definitive, but credible.
9 - "Bitcoin XT debate overshadowing growth" -Forex Minute
I'm not sure this is accurate. It may have been a top headline that the media picked up, however, I think it's far from what I would call an overshadowing of any historic relevance.
At the moment anyway.
At the moment anyway.
8 -"Bitcoin's anarchists can't make up collective mind" -Chicago Tribune:
Considering the "vote" doesn't end until January, it hasn't had a chance to make up it's mind.
Sounds cool however! A new logo perhaps?
Sounds cool however! A new logo perhaps?
7 - "Bitcoin might split, and it could spell its end " -CNBC
The worst case scenario would be a 75/25 split, and that's unlikely to happen, 75 percent is a commanding majority.
In any election in the United States that would be called a landslide of epic proportion. It requires less to become President of the United States, needing only 51%.
In any election in the United States that would be called a landslide of epic proportion. It requires less to become President of the United States, needing only 51%.
6 -"Bitcoin XT Civil War" -SmallCap Network
Bitcoin is global, and the definition of a civil war would be between a single country. However, I understand the author's intent, and it's a catchy headline, but a bit overstretched.
5 "The Great Bitcoin Depression" -Forex Minute
Now we are getting deep. The only thing that is depressing, is reading all of these overstated misrepresentations.
4 -"Bitcoin is on the verge of a constitutional crisis" -PCWorld
There are unborn children that will be crawling before the consensus comes to fruition, and they will be walking, and talking, before it would ever actually affect anything.
Hardly on the "verge" of any kind of "crisis".
Hardly on the "verge" of any kind of "crisis".
3 "The Bitcoin Fork Is A Coup" - IEEE Spectrum
Ummmm... can you describe the coup? Where is this coup? Is it one of those nasty coup's or just a normal coup?
BitcoinXT, or the "Bitcoin Fork", is a consensus requiring a 75% commanding majority over the next 6 months before it could become a hard fork and officially adopted. Assuming that happens, it will take another 6-12 months afterwards before it would change anything processing wise.
CORRECTION UPDATE (8/27): We inaccurately stated this. To clarify, it will be another 6 months from now before Bitcoin XT could become a reality, this part is correct. However, the earliest "hard fork" date could be Jan 2016 with a 2 week grace period for the minority miners running Bitcoin Core, to move to Bitcoin XT (assuming there is a majority vote for XT). The block size issue may not become a problem for 6-12 months from that point if nothing changes, or if miners refrain from exceeding the current limitation, however, miners would indeed have the ability to go over the current limit as early as Jan 2016. Once over the current block size limit, they would no longer be compatible with Bitcoin Core (this is part of what all of the fuss is about). Thank you Reddit users timepad and seweso for bringing the mistake to our attention. -db
Sure seems like a slow democratic process that might or might not happen before Windows Phone has more than 56 users.
Sort of sounds like the exact opposite of a coup actually, doesn't it?
BitcoinXT, or the "Bitcoin Fork", is a consensus requiring a 75% commanding majority over the next 6 months before it could become a hard fork and officially adopted. Assuming that happens, it will take another 6-12 months afterwards before it would change anything processing wise.
CORRECTION UPDATE (8/27): We inaccurately stated this. To clarify, it will be another 6 months from now before Bitcoin XT could become a reality, this part is correct. However, the earliest "hard fork" date could be Jan 2016 with a 2 week grace period for the minority miners running Bitcoin Core, to move to Bitcoin XT (assuming there is a majority vote for XT). The block size issue may not become a problem for 6-12 months from that point if nothing changes, or if miners refrain from exceeding the current limitation, however, miners would indeed have the ability to go over the current limit as early as Jan 2016. Once over the current block size limit, they would no longer be compatible with Bitcoin Core (this is part of what all of the fuss is about). Thank you Reddit users timepad and seweso for bringing the mistake to our attention. -db
Sure seems like a slow democratic process that might or might not happen before Windows Phone has more than 56 users.
Sort of sounds like the exact opposite of a coup actually, doesn't it?
2 "CATASTROPHIC" - Vox
Now this is taken out of context, admittedly, but it's mere existence in a sentence is hilarious. Sure, under certain circumstances it could possibly be a problem. It is highly unlikely the digital currency community would ever let this happen to a point of being actually catastrophic.
Honestly you have a better chance choking on a soggy noodle today at lunch. Argumentative the community may be, self-destructive they are not.
Honestly you have a better chance choking on a soggy noodle today at lunch. Argumentative the community may be, self-destructive they are not.
...and the Most Exaggerated Bitcoin XT Media Statement is:
1 "We’ve reached the cryptocurrency version of a nuclear stand-off" -IEEE Spectrum
Batman Vs. Superman, Pepsi Vs. Coke, or maybe Apple Vs. Microsoft I could see using, although, they would still be overstated comparisons. At least they would be more appropriate then a possible planetary obliteration. I found this amusing, but it was a bit overstated.
Moving Along
There are good points on either side of the debate (that's what it is, a debate) and this problem didn't materialize yesterday, it's been a known problem for a while, in fact, the Bitcoin XT solution was started in 2014.
Bitcoin XT is just a consensus, and one that doesn't even end until January of next year. We may well see some real fireworks then, as the end draws near, but the more likely solution is that everyone will know month in advance of any such occurrence.
Bitcoin XT is just a consensus, and one that doesn't even end until January of next year. We may well see some real fireworks then, as the end draws near, but the more likely solution is that everyone will know month in advance of any such occurrence.
Is this a heated debate, sure. Is this important? Of course it is. Global Thermonuclear War tension worthy? Let's not go that far, but it was certainly humorous to say the least.
Granted, all of these articles contained informative content once you got past the doomsday scenarios and this is certainly something to be cognizant of in the forthcoming months into 2016.
Worthy of nuclear warheads? No. However, at this moment, perhaps a handful of firecrackers.
Post a Comment
Post a Comment