Editor's Note: This article comes fromCarbon chain valueEditor's Note: This article comes from
Carbon chain value
Recently, a war is taking place in the BCH ecology. Initially, this war was named "Scaling War", and it seemed that one side advocated expansion and the other opposed it. This is reminiscent of the 2015-2017 Bitcoin expansion battle. The outcome of that war was that Bitcoin split into the current two ecosystems of BTC and BCH. But with the deepening of the debate, most people realized that expansion is not a disagreement, but what the disagreement is is becoming more and more blurred.
The analysis of this article starts with the version dispute, and will gradually go deep into the behind-the-scenes disputes of routes, interests, power, and ideas to analyze the root causes of wars and the direction of ecological evolution. This is another round of evolutionary pains in the process of Bitcoin entering the mainstream society. [1] will prompt the decentralized ecology to face up to the political, social and ideological issues in its development, and promote the evolution and maturity of its political structure.
secondary title1. Version dispute: ABC VS BSVThe immediate differences of this war are run
Client version wars.The Bitcoin ABC development team developed a Bitcoin client with a block capacity of 8M around July 2017. With the support of expansion supporters, it went online on August 1, 2017 and operated independently of the BTC network, resulting in the current BCH.In the following year, although Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitprim, nChain, Bitcrust, ElectrumX, Parity and Bitcoin XT were involved in BCH development,
But the main development work and development leadership rests with the ABC team.
The latest version currently used on the entire network is Bitcoin ABC 0.17.2 developed by ABC.
The current main development team, BitcoinABC team ("ABC") and Bitmain, etc. ("Continental" for short), advocate continuing to run the version developed by the ABC team; the other party is Craig S Wight, nChain, CoinGeek mining pool and BMG mining pool, etc. ( "CSW" for short,) supports the Bitcoin Satoshi Vision version ("BSV" for short). The main differences between the two versions are:
The ABC team will be rolling out two updates in version 0.18 on November 15th:
1) Add canonical transaction ordering (CTOR) to transactions in the block;
2) Add two opcodes (OP_CHECKDATASIG and OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY).
The BSV version launched by CSW is developed based on version 0.17 of ABC, and there are also two important updates:
1) The upper limit of the block capacity is increased from the current 32M to 128M;
2) Restore the 4 opcodes designed by Satoshi Nakamoto in the early version but disabled.
The war broke out after ABC released the 0.18 version upgrade on the BCH official website Bitcoincash.org, CSW made strong criticism and released the BSV version, proposing to cancel the 0.18 version upgrade of ABC, and adopt the BSV version on the entire network. This move was opposed by the ABC team and Bitmain, and raised objections to the BSV version.
CSW objected to both updates to ABC0.18, arguing that:
OP_CHECKDATASIG and OP_CHECKDATASIGVERIFY can be used to design gambling applications, thus causing the BCH main chain to be blocked by the government. This logic faded out of the debate for two reasons: a. Without these two opcodes, BCH can also design gambling applications, but it is more complicated [2], and b. Basis for ban.
CTOR is not a necessary improvement to BCH, but also increases the complexity of the underlying protocol. This point is quite controversial. The Rawpool research report supports the above opinions against CTOR[3], while Markblundeberg’s article[4] submitted on Reddit analyzed that CTOR itself has not significantly improved the BCH system in the near future, and it is uncertain in the long run, but at present The upgrade facilitates subsequent graphene upgrades that allow for larger block sizes. The BCH roadmap [5] released by ABC also shows that CTOR is the forerunner upgrade of subsequent graphene and large block upgrades. Jonald Fyookball comprehensively analyzed the role, advantages and necessity of upgrading of CTOR. [6]
BSV opponents represented by the ABC team and Bitmain have no strong opposition to the restoration of the four earlier disabled opcodes. The main objection is to expand the BSV version to 128M [7]. The main reasons are:
At present, the actual capacity of each block of BCH is about 200k, and the upper limit of the existing 32M block is 160 times the actual capacity, and there is no market demand for capacity expansion. In this regard, the CSW side emphasized that when they recommended the use of BCH to large banks and department stores, these large companies emphasized that the capacity limit of BCH is too small to meet their needs. Therefore, first upgrading to 128M and then canceling the upper limit of block capacity is a prerequisite for attracting large companies to use BCH.BSV's 128M expansion is immature and lacks corresponding test data. In this regard, CSW did not provide the necessary test data. In early September 2018, BCH conducted a round of stress tests on the existing 32M upper limit. The largest block in the test was 21M, and some nodes were offline. No authoritative test report has been seen so far. At the Bangkok meeting in August, ABC, Bitmain, Roger Ver and other parties stated that after the upgrade in November is completed, they will invest in testing the feasibility of 128M expansion. If it passes, they will consider deploying it in the upgrade in May 2019.According to the above combing, it is actually the CTOR of ABC0.18 that finally diverges. Even this disagreement is far from as serious as the disagreement in the scaling battle in July 2017. At that time, the Bitcoin network had been congested for one year, and its market share had dropped sharply, while Core firmly refused to raise the block limit.
, and increasing the block capacity is supported by both sides, and even the CSW side that opposes it is more urgent to promote. CTOR's increase of system burden is mainly due to the lack of powerful deduction and evaluation.
In short, since 2009, Bitcoin has been updated many times, and many updates have objections and concerns. The controversy of CTOR does not belong to the largest category. Why would it provoke a war? Moreover, the nodes of the ABC version account for 57% of the entire network and have dominated the community for one year, while the challenged BSV version accounts for only 1% and has just been launched, and even "some codes are not perfect" [8], so it is not eligible for the challenge at all? In fact, the version dispute is not the key point, there are even bigger differences behind it.
secondary title2. Route battle: Exploration update VS return to classic
Behind the version war is the rightThere are seemingly irreconcilable differences in the development path of BCH.
Version 0.18 and earlier of ABC implement the exploration update route. The basic idea of this route is:
BCH is in the fiercely competitive market environment of cryptocurrencies, and must constantly explore and update, including self-innovation and learning from other cryptocurrencies, in order to quickly improve user experience and increase market share.
This route first came from the birth of BCH. BCH itself risked splitting from the mainstream Bitcoin community in order to meet the market's demand for block capacity. After the birth of BCH, the original 2160-block difficulty adjustment rule led to huge fluctuations in the block generation time. The community quickly reached a consensus, and it took only one month to complete the development and upgrade of the block-by-block difficulty rule (DAA), and Achieving success has motivated a quick update of the route. Bitmain's extensive attention, research and investment on various altcoins and public chains makes them have a strong sense of crisis about the competitiveness of BCH, and they are more inclined to this route. The ABC team, as the direct developer of the birth of BCH and the adjustment of difficulty rules, also supports this route.
Based on this route, the ABC team implemented a hard fork upgrade rhythm twice a year (roughly in May and November) in order to form clear expectations, complete rapid update iterations more concisely and efficiently through hard forks, and avoid soft forks complexity and historical burden. But this also brings about a problem—centralization of development, that is, rapid evolution requires rapid development decisions. Although all development teams participate in technical discussions and decisions during the development process, the decision of ABC in rapid evolution is more critical.For example, in the DAA upgrade, someone tested three alternatives, and the ABC scheme ranked second and was actually deployed; Wu Jihan also said that it is not necessary to increase the upper limit of BCH capacity from 8M to 32M in May 2018. However, these did not form a sustained doubt and disagreement. After all, the centralization of development is not a problem of ABC, but a problem that has existed since the birth of Bitcoin (BTC and BCH) and has not been solved. The influence of ABC on BCH is incomparable to that of Core on BTC. ABC does not yet have the centralized power to solely control the development of BCH.The CSW design of the BSV version is based on a completely different return to the classic route: Satoshi Nakamoto originally designed an underlying framework for Bitcoin that is capable of assuming the world's currency functions.
BCH needs to return to and stabilize the underlying protocol of early Bitcoin, cancel the upper limit of the block, and only develop at the application layer to achieve the goal of world currency.
The naming of BSV, Bitcoin Satoshi Vision, fully reflects this route.
This BSV upgrade is the first step for CSW to return to the classics. In the future, all opcodes designed by Satoshi Nakamoto but disabled will be gradually restored, and Turing-complete scripts will be realized, and then developers after Satoshi Nakamoto will be removed. Changes to focus development on upper-layer applications.
The divergence and opposition between these two lines is stark:
Exploring the update route believes that: Bitcoin is a scientific experiment, and it is impossible to predict all the difficulties and market changes in the future from the beginning. Even the underlying protocol should make necessary improvements, especially in the current environment of open competition . The blockage of BTC expansion, the birth of BCH, and the adoption of DAA not only prove that the Satoshi Nakamoto system is not perfect, but the underlying protocol still needs to evolve. It is no longer necessary to pay attention to the decision-making of one chain due to the fixed cost of mining machines. Even if we go back to the past, there will still be unyielding minority forks in the long-term development, and the multi-chain coexistence will be realized with the help of DAA. We can only explore the development path forward, not dream of going back to the past. [9]Returning to the classic route, we believe that if Bitcoin wants to become a world currency, it must have a solid and stable foundation. In the words of CSW, castles should be built on stones, not sand. If the underlying protocol of BCH is unstable, no large enterprise will dare to Introduce BCH into your own business. CSW emphasized that the Bitcoin system should not be a "toy" for developers. CSW opposed the BCH fork from the very beginning. [10] He modified the difficulty algorithm in BCH and entered the BCH community after the operation became stable. In his current route, changing BCH to his BSV version is just the beginning. He will further eliminate BTC through computing power attacks, end the coexistence of double chains, cancel DAA, and return to the ecosystem originally designed by Satoshi Nakamoto.
The differences in line seem to be tit-for-tat and irreconcilable, but the boundaries of the differences in the actual debate are gradually blurring
, mainly for two reasons:
"Stabilizing the underlying protocol" is very vague. The return to the classic route proposed by CSW himself is very clear. He wants to restore the system to the earliest version 0.1 of Satoshi Nakamoto, and then "lock (lock)". But in fact, version 0.1 is very immature, and there will be many "underlying protocol" improvements that have to be made for the safe and stable operation of the system. Even some "functional" improvements have been widely adopted, such as multi-signature, and it is impossible to delete them. "Locking to version 0.1" is impossible! Therefore, supporters of CSW's view, including nChain officials, have to interpret "locking the underlying protocol" as "stable underlying protocol". But the underlying agreement should be "stable" in the eyes of either party. After all, no one wants to renovate the house every year. Before the CSW side listed all the updates and judged whether they need to be revoked item by item, the "stable underlying agreement" was very vague. Wu Jihan also emphasized on Twitter that based on the underlying agreement, the second-level innovation without permission was promoted. [11]The dispute over the line may seem sharp, but the debate and implementation are not clear-cut, and there is no urgency.
Even going down the classic route doesn't require much action to stop the already released ABC 0.18 upgrade. Because CTOR is just one of the dozens and hundreds of updates that CSW has to revoke, one more and one less, and it is not a big problem to be early or late. Why did CSW suddenly attack, determined to win? We had to keep digging.
secondary title3. Interest analysis: no direct conflict of interest!
The first thing to consider is profit.
but,The interest motivation of the ABC team is relatively simple. Most of the developers of BTC and BCH are voluntary labor and do not directly receive remuneration from the development work. At present, some developers belong to large companies or receive funding from large companies. For example, the Core team of BTC mainly works in Blockstream, nChain has established its own development team, and Bitmain also has its own underlying development team.
but,
The ABC team is not owned or funded by a large corporation.
CSW once attacked ABC for collecting money from Bitmain. In fact, ABC proposed at the beginning of the year that it needed to hire developers to undertake primary work and share the pressure of the main developers. Bitmain's donation was rejected, and ABC was unwilling to bear such an attack from CSW. Subsequently, Wu Jihan proposed to raise development funds through miners' tax, but it did not receive widespread support from the community, so it was left alone. However, the sponsorship address announced on the ABC official website still received 782.5BCH funding, including 0.00625BCH per block funded by the mining pool bitcoin.com invested by Roger Ver.
As a staunch supporter of BCH, I believe that ABC team members should be staunch holders of BCH, which should be their main interest. The motivation for development should mainly lie in the contribution to ideals. After all, you can hoard coins without development. On their terms, there will be very generous rewards for joining various blockchain projects.Bitmain’s profit motivation mainly lies in two aspects:
1) Mining machine sales and mining revenue.
The SHA256 algorithm mining machine is Bitmain's main profitable mining machine variety, which is used for mining BTC and BCH. Bitmain obtains mining income from three channels: selling mining machines, mining, and operating mining pools. This benefit prompts Bitmain to:
Maintain the security and stability of BCH and BTC systems
Maintain the existing PoW mechanism and mining algorithm of BCH and BTC.This explains why Bitmain supports the fork of BCH in terms of benefits, and does not attack BTC when the computing power is dominant. The former is because Core's influence and settlement network route will endanger the PoW mechanism, so BCH is forked out to maintain the world currency route. The latter is because attacking BTC will force Core to modify the mining algorithm and destroy its mining advantage in BTC.
2) Earnings from hoarding coins.
The financial report disclosed by Bitmain for the IPO shows that they hold more than 1 million BCH and 20,000 BTC, which directly determines that Bitmain must work hard to maintain the security of the BCH ecosystem and actively promote the commercial application of BCH. This explains that its underlying development team has invested a lot of energy in developing the Go language version of bitcoin cash (Copernicus project), developing the open source BCH wormhole protocol (token and smart contract scheme), and providing technical consultation for various BCH applications, etc. The series supports the behavior of BCH development. Judging from the income from hoarding coins, Bitmain pays more attention to the development of BCH.The interest structure of CSW is more complicated and vague than that of Bitmain, and it is more difficult to explain its behavior.First, the amount of BCH held by CSW is unknown. CSW claimed on Twitter that its BCH holdings surpassed that of Bitmain, which means more than one million, but there is no strong evidence for this. CSW announced that his business logic is to hold a large amount of BCH, and then invest in the BCH ecology. The development of the ecology will promote the price increase of BCH, thereby obtaining benefits.
Based on this, it is speculated that he should hold a large amount of BCH.
If according to CSW's own claim, he is Satoshi Nakamoto, then Satoshi Nakamoto's early mining BCH and BTC are more than 1 million (referred to as Satoshi Nakamoto's wealth), which has never been used. However, CSW failed to produce a private key signature to prove that he was Satoshi Nakamoto on the grounds that it would compromise his security.
This rationale has two loopholes:
If you admit that you are Satoshi Nakamoto, you should not be afraid of the security issues caused by signatures.
He once produced a false signature which was debunked.
In addition, a document called "Tulip Trust" [12] shows that Dave Kleiman has escrowed 1.1 million BTC for CSW and agreed to return it to CSW in 2020. But Dave is dead, and the documents have not been verified or falsified, so there is no way to know for sure. Therefore, we can only speculate that CSW may have considerable BCH and BTC, but it may not have the wealth of Satoshi Nakamoto, and its BTC and BCH holding ratio is not clear.
Second, CSW does receive significant investment. When CSW entered the BCH community, it claimed for many times that it had the support of "rich friends". Since then, news of investing in the BCH ecosystem has been released, including the deployment of mines, mining pools, and investment in BCH application projects. At present, the composition of investors and the amount of investment are still unclear, and we hope that those in the know will add relevant information. What is certain is that he has indeed received a large amount of direct or indirect investment. Therefore, the interest motive of CSW covers the interest motive of investors. Since the recent expansion of CSW's influence is mainly to support the substantial increase in computing power, he himself threatened to attack different routes of BCH with computing power, and even further attack BTC with computing power. Therefore, computing power investment should represent the interests of its investors.
Finally, CSW has applied for a large number of cryptocurrency-related patents. The main content of nChain's early business was to apply for patents. In 2018, there were 43 blockchain patents under the name of nChain[13], ranking sixth in the world (ranking fourth in 2017). But CSW himself claims to have received 2,500 patents. [14] Since CSW despises or even despises other public chains other than BTC and BCH, it can be speculated that his patents mainly focus on the technical aspects of BTC and BCH. CSW claims that nChain's patent will authorize the BCH ecosystem to be used for free, and other blockchain applications will be curbed by its patent. This was appreciated by many in the BCH community, but criticized by Wu Jihan, who believed that patents could not curb the development of decentralized cryptocurrencies. Opponents of CSW's return to the classic route believe that CSW's patents are likely to be related to the early version of Satoshi Nakamoto, and its stable BCH underlying protocol is to maintain the validity of its patents and obtain economic benefits through patents.
Comparing the interest motives of the ABC team, Bitmain and CSW, the economic interests of the ABC team are the weakest, because its development activities have no direct benefits. Like the previous Bitcoin volunteer developers, their main motivation for participating in the development lies in the world currency Realization of value orientation and self-worth. The interest compatibility between Bitmain and the BCH ecology is the most obvious and strongest. Although its sources of income such as mining machines, mining pools, and mines are related to BTC and BCH, from the perspective of currency holdings, it is very important to mine more BTC. Partially switched to BCH, so its interests are more closely aligned with BCH. The interest motive of CSW is relatively vague. The computing power and patents currently invested can be used for BTC and BCH. It needs a specific currency holding structure to judge whether the focus of its interests is on BCH or BTC, or for the patent income of other public chains. Both Wu Jihan and Roger Ver sold most of their BTC to buy BCH, but CSW has not heard of similar behavior, and its compatibility with BCH's ecological interests is not clear enough.
Interest analysis can make it clear that the interests of Bitmain and BCH ecology are relatively closely bound, the interests of the ABC team are mainly driven from the spiritual level, and the interests of CSW are related to BTC and BCH, but it is difficult to judge how much they are biased towards BCH. It is worth noting that all parties in this war have major interests in BCH, and the expansion of BCH applications and price increases are the common interests of all parties. It is difficult to explain this war from the level of direct economic interests. We need to explore further the ideological differences and power struggles.
secondary title
4. The Battle of Ideas: Evolutionism VS Rationalism
In addition to the direct differences in economic interests, there are also differences in ideas that can lead to fierce conflicts among human beings. The most famous difference is the difference between "left" and "right". On the basis of common goals and even common economic interests, the ideological differences between the "left" and "right" may still lead to war.
Rationalism and the Return to the Classical RouteThis battle of BCH is largely a conceptual difference. The common goal of all parties in the BCH community is to develop BCH into a currency widely used in the world economy. However, returning to the classic route and exploring the updated route embody two different development concepts.The return to the classic route mainly embodies the idea of rationalism. It is believed that the rationality embodied in the "White Paper" by the founder Satoshi Nakamoto is sufficient to grasp the general laws of cryptocurrency, and the framework established is sufficient to achieve his goal of world currency.
No underlying changes are required.
Furthermore, CSW himself has shown a high degree of confidence in his personal rationality, not only opposing various technical transformations that deviate from Satoshi Nakamoto’s earlier version, but also strongly opposing and even fiercely attacking various technological improvements that did not follow his ideas.
Rationality is an important weapon for human survival, but this tendency to overestimate the power of reason and believe that reason can control the overall situation over a longer period of time and on a larger scale is added with the word "ism", that is, "rationalism". All kinds of thought trends for long-term planning and design of the future society, including the traditional planned economy thought, are all classified as "rationalism".
The advantages of rationalism are:
It not only provides a definite goal, but also provides a simple, clear, easy-to-understand, and very deterministic realization route, which is easy to inspire people to forge ahead and gain public recognition;
It is easy to concentrate on solving key problems in the short term, which is often said to "concentrate on big things".
Its biggest risks come from three aspects:
In practice, we are constantly hit by new problems that emerge in an endless stream, and gradually lose social trust;
Systematic deviations that are difficult to reverse have been formed for a long time, leading to imbalances and even collapses of the social and economic systems.
A typical case of rationalism is the Stalin model. The first few five-year plans had remarkable effects. They had to suppress the opposition brought by new problems for a long time. After eliminating a large number of opponents with the ability to solve problems, systemic problems eventually led to the disintegration of the power system. .
textEvolutionism and Exploring the Update RouteThe idea behind exploring the update route is evolutionism. Compared with rationalism, evolutionism believes that human rationality is limited,
don't even agree with the existence of universal universal truths
It is believed that human beings accumulate temporarily effective knowledge and systems through short-term judgments, trial and error, and experience, and need to adapt to the external environment and solve internal problems through continuous changes. The important thing is not to formulate long-term plans, but to make full use of the knowledge and systems accumulated in history to continuously optimize every recent decision.
Hayek is a famous scholar of evolutionism. He believes that the information and knowledge of individual human beings are scattered and difficult for any organization to fully grasp. The human social system is formed by the spontaneous aggregation and evolution of countless individuals making decisions based on their own information. For this reason, he resolutely opposes collectivism in which social systems are designed by centralized organizations in the name of public goals. Hayek specifically criticized rationalism (rationalism), and drew a line from the "pseudo-individualism" that previously believed that liberal social systems could be designed through rationality. [15]
The exploration and update route advocates rapid iterative adaptation to the market according to market changes during development, and its concept is consistent with Hayek's evolutionism. The main advantage of this evolutionism is that it can flexibly adapt to external changes, adjust and improve its own system in a timely manner, and achieve relatively stable and continuous progress or growth.
The main disadvantages of evolutionism are:
1) Lack of certainty. It is necessary to constantly reflect on judgments and adjust strategies based on changes in practice. It is difficult to form concise and continuous publicity content, and it is difficult to quickly win and maintain public support unless the public has generally understood the meaning of evolution;
2) It is easy to disagree. In the face of new problems, different understandings will arise, and it is difficult to unify thinking, especially on major issues, and the efficiency of short-term decision-making is low.Different ways of resolving disagreements between the two philosophiesHistorically, both Marx and Hayek had the same goal,
We all want to realize the freedom of every individual of all human beings
. However, their implementation concepts and paths are completely different. Marx puts more emphasis on the rationalist system design route, and Hayek emphasizes the evolutionary system evolution route. This disagreement has created the worst human conflict in history.
Once a concept is formed, it is difficult to change, and the conflict between rationalism and evolutionism is difficult to reconcile. When faced with conflicts of ideas, rationalism and evolutionism deal with conflicts in completely different ways.
Rationalists firmly believe that only their own line is the only correct line, and that other lines will lead everyone astray. Therefore, for the benefit and even the fate of all, rationalists must not allow the wrong line to win. Based on a strong belief in reason and a sense of responsibility for the public good, rationalists often allow any means to be used to discourage other routes, including the physical elimination of opponents.
CSW made it clear that he did not support the BCH fork in August 2017. In order to correct this mistake, he is rapidly accumulating computing power, threatening to attack the forked chain in the development of BCH, and further attacking and destroying BTC, bringing Bitcoin back to Core Before leading, the unified route set by Satoshi Nakamoto went up.
Evolutionism cannot determine which line is correct in the long run. Even if you have confidence in your immediate judgment, it will not eliminate other lines, because it is still possible that the opponents are right, and it is more likely that new situations will emerge in the future. The author's route will come in handy.
Evolutionists are therefore more inclusive, advocating:
1) I do not agree with your words, but I firmly defend your right to speak;
2) Protect minorities.
I myself tend to be evolutionary, advocating that a decentralized social and economic system must evolve. At the end of 2016, I proposed that bifurcation is an effective way to solve the dispute between routes and ideas. More routes increase the chances and scenarios for the success of cryptocurrency [16]. Wu Jihan also made it clear on many occasions that he welcomes CSW to fork from BCH, establish a Bitcoin version that realizes his Satoshi Nakamoto perspective, and is willing to provide computing power to help CSW fork.
In the most violent conflict between rationalism and evolutionism, rationalism will try to destroy evolutionism, while evolutionism will fight for dominance, not only for the development line, but also for its own survival. Therefore, the battle of ideas will externalize into a fierce power struggle.
The root cause of BCH's current divergence lies in the dispute of ideas, which explains why such fierce conflicts broke out within the community when there are not major version conflicts, route differences are not urgent, and economic conflicts of interest are not obvious. Because both parties have lofty ideals and have huge interests in BCH, the other party's "wrong" ideas cannot be allowed to dominate the ecology. As a result, differences in ideas lead to fierce power struggles.
secondary title5. Power struggle: Decentralized VS Tree-centeredSharp differences in ideas lead to fierce competition for power.
Although the current disagreement is whether to run the ABC version or the BSV version, the main players in the competition are not the development teams of the two versions. The ABC team mainly develops based on ideals, and pays more attention to the development work itself. At the Bangkok meeting, it showed helplessness and disgust towards political disputes.The BSV team is mainly employed by CSW and has no strong demands of its own.The protagonists of the power struggle are actually
A staunch defender of two concepts: Wu Jihan of evolutionism and CSW of rationalism.
The author himself firmly advocates the evolutionary cryptocurrency development route. Since he came into contact with Bitcoin in 2013, he has been optimistic about the great power of this evolving decentralized system.
nature of war
The current disagreement is the dispute between evolutionism and rationalism on the philosophical level, and the dispute between the decentralization of power and the center of the power tree at the political level: Wu Jihan in the process of decentralization of power meets CSW who is eager to establish his own authority.
The centralization of power is the main enemy of evolutionism. Once a power center is formed, this center will generate and maintain its own interests, deviate from common interests, and tend to hide its own interests and mistakes, thereby hindering the competitive evolution of the system.
The degree of centralization of BCH was very high at the beginning of its birth, and the successful fork of BCH largely relied on the mining support of Wu Jihan, Jiang Zhuoer and Yang Haipo’s actual control of computing power, and the support of Wu Jihan and Roger Ver sells BTC and buys BCH. Jiang Zhuoer and Yang Haipo are also staunch supporters of Wu Jihan. This is also the reason why BCH is called the mining bully coin, and the "mining bully" mainly refers to Wu Jihan.
In order to realize the decentralization of BCH, Wu Jihan acted in a low-key manner in the past year, made few public speeches, avoided highlighting his personal influence, and withdrew his suggestions many times in BCH community discussions. Especially after Roger Ver, Gavin, CSW and other important figures in the Bitcoin community entered the BCH community one after another, the degree of decentralization of BCH has surpassed the BTC community dominated by Core and Blockstream. This war is also a good footnote.
Establishing authority is an inevitable political line of rationalism. It is an inevitable choice for firmly believing in rationality, designing the future, unifying thinking, and advancing rapidly. CSW made a high-profile appearance in May 2016, claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto[17] and gaining the support of Gavin, the core figure of Bitcoin Core at the time, but Gavin and Gavin lost their reputation in the Bitcoin community due to the fake signature incident.
After CSW entered the BCH community at the end of 2017, especially the Chinese community, he publicly declared that he, Dave Klieman and David Rees were Satoshi Nakamoto[18], showing off his degree, the number of papers, the number of patents, rich friends, Luxury cars, beauties, and privately showing large addresses to others, attacking BTC, Ethereum and other public chains, attacking Wu Jihan, attacking or blocking almost all dissidents, hoarding high-profile computing power and claiming to kill BTC, etc. . These catapulted CSW to fame, earning him a huge following in less than a year. The Chinese BCH community has split into a community that regards CSW as Satoshi Nakamoto and respects him as the leader. Wu Jihan's decentralization of power encountered CSW's establishment of personal authority, making this war inevitable.
war process
The war was started by CSW. On August 1, 2018, CSW, Wu Jihan, Roger, Yang Haipo and others had a harmonious atmosphere at the Hong Kong meeting[19]. At the meeting, Bitmain released a BCH-based two-layer smart contract product - the wormhole (wormhole) agreement.
On August 8, the ABC team announced that version 0.18 code was about to be completed[20]. On the same day, CSW tweeted to criticize BCH developers[21] that the graphene, weak block, pre-consensus and other improvements planned to be promoted were meaningless. He emphasized that Bitcoin is not Social experiments are not developers' toys. Bitcoin has established a solid foundation in version 0.1. All BCH needs to do is: 1) expand capacity; 2) lock the protocol.
CSW threatened that the November update would fail and that he would replace the developers.
On August 16, CSW and nChain announced the creation of Bitcoin SV, with the goal of restoring the original protocol of Bitcoin. Since then, the mining computing power of CoinGeek and BMG supporting CSW has grown rapidly. On August 22, CSW began to attack Wormhole, Wu Jihan, ABC, and Yang Haipo, claiming that the shortened block time, graphene, weak blocks, pre-consensus, CTOR, CDS, etc. they support are all for the realization of the Wormhole protocol For their own interests, they attack ABC as the new Core, and publicize that the 0.18 upgrade of ABC is a fork of BCH supported by Wu Jihan and others. They will use computing power to defeat the attempt of this fork. [22] On August 29, nChain released the Alpha version of Bitcoin SV.
Bangkok meeting
CoinGeek, which supports CSW, held another "BCH Miners Conference" in Bangkok at the same time, claiming that miners with more than 50% of BCH's computing power participated in the meeting. [23] The main mining pools and most of the other attendees at the Bangkok Summit had no knowledge of this "Bangkok Miners Conference", and some people jokingly called it the "air conference". CoinGeek reported on the official website the "Bangkok Miners Conference" attended by the "majority computing power". The success of “Satoshi Vision”,[24] combined with their just released version of Bitcoin SV, reports are very misleading.
The BCH war is a power war supported by differences in ideas. CSW has made full preparations in various aspects such as the development team, computing power, and public opinion, and launched the war. The Bangkok meeting failed to dissolve this war. Next, we analyze the differences between the two sides in the war. Balance of forces and possible outcomes.
secondary title
6. Comparison of combat power: Computing power advantage VS publicity advantage
This power war is currently only the first stage. The core of the war now is not whether Bitcoin SV is fully implemented, because BSV is immature, and the current proportion of nodes in the entire network is only 1%. Now the focus is on whether BitcoinABC version 0.18 will be upgraded smoothly on November 15th as planned.Comparison of computing powerLike any power war in history, the power of both sides ultimately depends on two aspects,
One is material power, that is, military violence, and the other is spiritual power, that is, ideology.
In the war of cryptocurrencies, military violence is computing power, which can maintain the security of a chain or attack other chains with the same computing power; ideology mainly gains more support through propaganda methods and techniques.
In terms of computing power, the computing power supporting ABC and Wu Jihan is clearly superior.The main mining pools that support CSW include CoinGeek, BMG, and SBI. At present, only CoinGeek accounts for 32% of the BCH computing power. Other mining pools should be mining in other mining pools. For example, BMG is generally in the Viabtc mining pool. It is estimated that the computing power of CSW can be calculated using the highest value reached before the Bangkok meeting, which is less than 55% of the computing power of BCH. Based on BTC and BCH price-weighted calculations, these computing power accounted for 4.4% of the total network computing power of BTC and BCH.[25]
The total computing power supporting ABC and Wu Jihan reached 55% of the entire network of BTC and BCH.
Composition of BTC computing power
image description
image description
Composition of BCH computing power
Propaganda comparison
Using various publicity methods to gain more support from the community is the main strategy used by CSW to make up for the disadvantage of computing power.
Including the following main means:
Claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto, he sought evidence through events such as Gavin, the Tulip Trust, and Dave’s brother’s lawsuit.
Show off the number of degrees, papers, patents and luxury life in a high-profile way to attack and conquer doubters.
Preach the lock on version 0.1 and use the "White Paper" to gain support from Bitcoin believers.
Gain the support of community noobs with the simple slogan of "locking the protocol + expanding capacity" to regain the name of Bitcoin.
Anti-customer-oriented, declaring that there will never be a fork, and describing the 0.18 upgrade of ABC as a fork supported by Wu Jihan.
Simplify the route of opponents to "reject expansion", and use the BCH large block expansion label to endorse yourself.
Comparing ABC to BTC's Core development team and Bitmain to Blockstream to vilify opponents in the BCH community.
Covering up the fact that BTC and BCH have the same computing power, claiming that their computing power exceeds 50%, creating threats of forks and intimidating the community.
Interpret the various actions of opponents as despicable actions related to the interests of Bitmain.
Leverage Bitmain's mining status to establish itself as a fighter at the center of antitrust and challenges.
In the propaganda war, ABC and Wu Jihan were relatively passive, mainly responding to CSW's attack. ABC explained the necessity of CTOR on its website. Wu Jihan responded mainly through twitter and several BCH WeChat groups. Wormhole protocol developer Jiang Jiazhi wrote two highly technical responses to the wormhole rumors. After several articles against CTOR, several articles explaining and supporting CTOR appeared.
Criticisms of CSW have focused on four areas:
character problem. CSW claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, took out fake signatures, and gave up the promised currency transfer proof, which not only damaged his personal reputation, but also destroyed Gavin's reputation. The flippant attack on others has also discredited CSW in the blockchain space.
Accused CSW of engaging in a personality cult.
It is not feasible to lock down the simple expansion route of the protocol. That is to say, the return to the classic route mentioned above is too unrealistic.
Point out issues such as plagiarism and technical errors in CSW papers. But this aspect is pointed out sporadically in social media, lacking systematic evidence collection, collation and publicity.
On the whole, CSW's propaganda campaign is consistent and systematic, and it uses nChain and CoinGeek to carry out propaganda, while Wu Jihan and ABC use single means and are relatively passive.
Comprehensive effect
Taken together, CSW's propaganda advantage is very obvious, and it has gained significant support since its offensive began in early August. The first is the emergence of firm believers who regard CSW as Satoshi Nakamoto. They fiercely attacked various doubts about CSW in several early BCH WeChat groups, and eventually split into independent communities.
Due to CSW's character flaws, the size and influence of self-confessed believers is not large. The biggest success of CSW's propaganda advantage is that it has won many people who agree with its ideas and routes. This is inherently the strength of the rationalist idea: achieving ambitious goals in a concise, deterministic manner.
Points that CSW is very attractive to BCH supporters include:
Satoshi Nakamoto's "White Paper" is the basic basis for resolving differences. Many cryptocurrency supporters base their beliefs directly or indirectly on Satoshi Nakamoto's White Paper. CSW's return to the classics adapts to this belief, and it is not easy to accept that the exploration update route believes that the "White Paper" cannot be adhered to in the face of new problems.
Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency. The BCH community is composed of groups in the original Bitcoin community who firmly believe that the block capacity should be expanded in order to continue to realize the world currency dream. Most people firmly believe that there is only one Bitcoin. CSW adapts this ideal based on this attack on various coins including BTC. The exploration and update route agrees with the coexistence of multiple chains and multiple currencies, especially Wu Jihan emphasized that "BCH is BCH, and BTC is BTC". There is no need to compete for the name of "Bitcoin". We should actively look at various competing currencies and learn from each other to improve our own competition. force.
PoW is the rule of survival, using computing power to resolve differences and regain the name of "Bitcoin". CSW emphasizes that PoW is the only effective decentralized consensus, and advocates the promotion of BSV through computing power attacks, and then eliminates BTC through computing power attacks. Wu Jihan and others believe that the history of cryptocurrencies including BTC and BCH has shown that computing power is an important force that determines the development of PoW cryptocurrencies, but it is not the only force. It is necessary to explore a community governance structure that is more conducive to the evolution.
Based on the earlier framework, the goal can be achieved simply by expanding the capacity. On the basis of the above points, CSW believes that returning to version 0.1, it only needs to continuously expand the capacity to establish a steadily expanding currency system and realize the world currency dream as soon as possible. Wu Jihan and others believe that BCH has to face many challenges, not only to expand its capacity, but also to get rid of various constraints, learn the advantages of competing currencies, and improve user experience. Only when more and more people use it can the dream of world currency be realized.
Through these five points of view, CSW has adapted to the good wishes of most people in the BCH community who are loyal to the "White Paper", hoping to eliminate the wrong influence of Core, and return to Bitcoin orthodoxy, and has won a large number of supporters. They declared that they were "about things and not people" and did not appreciate CSW's character, but supported his "some points of view". These points, however, are precisely the central outgrowth of CSW's rationalist philosophy. By embracing these views, many people unconsciously become CSW supporters. [26]
secondary title
7. Prospects for War: Responding to Ten Thousand Changes with the Same
Since CSW launched the offensive in early August 2018, with the help of Satoshi Nakamoto's white paper and the advantages of rationalism, CSW has gained a greater advantage, and partially achieved the purpose of establishing personal authority. But there is one near-term victory that CSW desperately needs: canceling or postponing the November 15th Bitcoin ABC 0.18 upgrade.
Victory for CSW
The failure of the announced version 0.18 upgrade will lead to the interruption of the regular update route led by ABC, the decline of the credibility of the official website announcement, the frustration of self-worth realization, the weakening of the motivation, and the loss of the credibility of Wu Jihan who supports ABC. These are the follow-up BSV-led development, establishment of CSW's personal authority, and realization of the rationalist line.
From the comparison of computing power, it can be seen that the computing power supporting ABC and Wu Jihan has an absolute advantage of 12.5:1. The chance for CSW to win is to use the vulnerable time point of the hard fork upgrade on November 15th to launch an attack through publicity. :
1) Describe the "hard fork upgrade" as a "fork" that splits the community,
2) Put yourself in the "justice" position of the "non-fork" community protector,
3) When the threat escalates, stay in the original chain and attack the "fork" chain with computing power, creating a "fork" panic.
In this way, "no fork" is used to confuse the public, and then the original chain "fork" is used to intimidate the community, creating huge pressure from public opinion, trying to force ABC and Wu Jihan to suspend the upgrade in November in order to win a phased victory.
There are indeed many people in the BCH community who are afraid of possible forks. To this end, they strive to remain neutral, downplay differences, try to reach a reconciliation between the two parties, maintain community unity, and even compare war to the behavior of fighting cars on the road game"),[27] called for a "courageous" compromise on both sides.
In fact, this failed to realize the essence of war, underestimated the wisdom of CSW and Wu Jihan, was successfully captured by CSW's bifurcation intimidation strategy, unconsciously supported CSW, and put pressure on Wu Jihan.
Barriers to CSW Victory
Regarding the strategy of CSW, the author put forward 7 points of view in his speech at the Bangkok meeting. In addition to clarifying the ideas of the evolutionary line, he also clearly advocated:[28]
1) Complete the November 15th upgrade first, and then discuss the follow-up route and governance structure. Interrupting an upgrade announced under the original governance model will make it difficult to coordinate and synchronize future hard fork upgrades. Because in the situation of development competition, there will be objections to each upgrade, and the upgrade may be interrupted.
2) Cannot be kidnapped by "never fork". In the case of competing development teams and mutual resistance to upgrades, "never fork" will become an obstacle to the evolution of the system. The minority can follow the example of CSW and refuse to upgrade, threatening to stay in the original chain and cause a fork, so that the "hard fork upgrade" will be abolished. The author advocates: You cannot be kidnapped by "Never Fork", and you don't need to kidnap others by "Never Fork". The right of minorities to fork should also be protected.
These recommendations were strongly supported by Roger, Wu Jihan, the ABC team and many other participants at the Bangkok meeting.
Wu Jihan was very calm in the face of the community panic caused by CSW. He didn't speak much in public, but simply expressed his firm support for ABC's hard fork upgrade on November 15. Wu Jihan has a close relationship with his computing power supporters, and Bitmain mining machines are also the main source of these computing power. It is unlikely that the computing power supporting Wu Jihan will split before November 15. Therefore, Wu Jihan can calmly deal with CSW's series of offensive strategies and wait for the outcome in November.
War Sandbox
Let's first assume that CSW keeps his promise, does not follow the ABC 0.18 upgrade on November 15th, stays at version 0.17, and lets the computing power that supports him attack the 0.18 chain. Assume that before November 15th, the computing power of CoinGeek, BMG, SBI, etc. that support CSW can increase by another 50%, which means 4.4%*1.5=6.6% of the entire network. For the sake of simplicity, assume that the computing power supporting Wu Jihan is directly reduced by 2.2%, which accounts for 52.8% of the entire network.
If CSW uses all its computing power to attack the 0.18 chain, Wu Jihan only needs to adjust 7% of the 52.8% computing power to maintain the security of the 0.18 chain, and the 0.17 chain will soon die without computing power support. Wu Jihan had nothing to lose. CSW will lose mining costs during the attack.
If all the computing power of CSW maintains the 0.17 chain, and Wu Jihan expressly welcomes the CSW fork, then:
1) If other supporters of Wu Jihan, such as btc.top or viabtc, are more willing to attack the fork, each owning more than 6.6% of the computing power of the entire network, the attack will cause 0.17 chains to die. But the attacker will pay the opportunity cost of computing power during the attack.
2) If other mining pools agree with CSW's fork and do not attack, the 0.17 chain will survive. At this time, the 0.17 chain is obviously a small chain, without the support of an official domain name, it is difficult for large exchanges to list the 0.17 chain coin. If CSW keeps its promise and does not protect against replay attacks, it will be even more difficult for the exchange to support this 0.17 chain coin . [29] Even if it is on the shelves, it will be given a different code name to avoid confusion with BCH.possible endingThrough this simple deduction, it is not difficult to see that,
It is unlikely that CSW will win this war.
CSW must know this, which is why he uses various means to gain a publicity advantage and create panic in the community. As long as Wu Jihan and his supporting computing power remain unmoved, with CSW's intelligence and his resilience in the self-certified Satoshi Nakamoto failure incident, he will not launch a decisive battle of computing power, and the original chain will not fork.If CSW still sticks to its dream and investors also support it heavily, CSW will maintain the original chain of 0.17 when upgrading in November, and gradually replace it with the BSV version. There is a high probability that this chain will not be attacked, because the attack is costly, and this forked chain also lacks short-selling tools for profit, making it difficult to hedge the cost. The forked chain will give BCH holders another asset. The risk of this asset is mainly borne by CSW and its investors, and the benefits are shared by everyone.
, will continue to launch a propaganda offensive before November 15, [30] but as long as Wu Jihan and his supporting computing power remain unchanged and respond to all changes, there is no suspense about the outcome of this war.
As long as the upgrade is completed on November 15th, the various methods used in CSW propaganda will gradually be seen through by the community, and the panic created will dissipate. In this way, all parties will calmly and rationally advance the consensus and have enough time to reach a consensus.
secondary title
8. Evolution of Bitcoin (BCH)For this war of BCH, the outside world has paid less attention. A small number of followers are mainly BTC supporters, especially Core followers. They are happy to see the internal strife of BCH, and regard it as a sign of BCH's failure, and even support the previously hated CSW to fight the hated Wu Jihan. There are also many people in BCH who simply regard differences as damage and expect all parties to compromise. For this reason, they fell into the CSW propaganda trap, put pressure on Wu Jihan to compromise, and became potential supporters of CSW.In the author's view,
Internal wars and forks are inevitable processes of any decentralized cryptocurrency and are the driving force for the development of the system. Satoshi Nakamoto designed and started this social experiment, but it was impossible to foresee all the difficulties
. Bitcoin was tested in the geek community from 2009 to 2013, and the basic technical framework was tested. [31] After entering the mainstream society after 2013, it began to face economic, political, and ideological problems. In the process of exploring and solving these problems, differences and bifurcations are inevitable, which is an inevitable process of the evolution of the decentralized system.
This war is another round of evolution after Bitcoin broke away from Core control and regenerated into BCH:
Dev centralization issues are being addressed
Centralization of development and insufficient incentives for developers are old problems of Bitcoin's original framework. Before 2017, Core, which lacked development incentives, dominated the Bitcoin community, missed market opportunities, and caused Bitcoin to split into BTC and BCH.
At the end of 2016, the author wrote the article "The Expansion Controversy and the Political and Economic Prospects of Bitcoin" to analyze the problem of centralization of development and give suggestions for solving it: large companies with relevant interests should establish their own underlying development teams, and first solve the problem of developer incentives. Then solve the problem of centralization of development through the competition of large enterprises. CSW also proposed in August that professional teams funded by big miners should replace volunteer developers.
This war has initially realized the decentralized development model in which large stakeholder companies form bottom-level development teams and compete. The BSV version development team is a professional development team employed by CSW and nChaing. Bitmain's development team has also implemented the Copernicus project, developed a new BCH client in the Go language, and has begun testing. The focus of this war is also the competition for the development version and the development rights behind it, which is the evolution of BCH.
Evolution from the economic level to the political and ideological level
As a decentralized currency system, Bitcoin is not only a technological product, but also a complex social phenomenon. As Bitcoin is accepted by more people, especially after entering the mainstream society, it will face more and more economic, political, social and ideological problems. After the basic technical framework is tested, it is also tested in more fields ranging from economics to politics, law, and society.
After 2015, Bitcoin is basically stable technically, but the economic test has just begun, and the most prominent problem is the problem of expansion. The simple expansion of market demand has tested a big problem that is difficult to solve: the core of centralized development with insufficient incentives lacks market awareness, and neither users, application providers nor miners are able to reverse it. This economic test diverted the main body of Bitcoin away from the world currency and towards a settlement network and store-of-value asset. Fortunately, the birth of BCH inherited the original direction and continued to evolve.
The current war has no major differences at the economic level: there is no direct conflict of interest, and both are trying to achieve the world currency goal by expanding capacity. The disagreement this time is a power struggle based on differences in ideas. People who lack political experience and do not understand ideological differences have found it difficult to see the nature of war and make judgments.
This is exactly what the BCH community is more complex and more mature. This will educate and force the community to change to a more complete social structure, and will also attract experts in the political, social, and cultural fields. This is the evolution of BCH.
In-Depth Discussion on Social Governance
Although forks and the final choice of computing power provide a last resort to resolve differences, frequent forks are not good for the community as a whole. In reality, it is necessary to communicate, discuss and coordinate in order to reduce frictional losses and concentrate resources to develop the market. Therefore, in order to resolve differences, the BCH community has conducted in-depth discussions on community governance issues. For example, the unary decision-making mechanism of computing power voting proposed by Jiang Zhuoer, and the committee mechanism proposed by Yang Haipo. Regardless of whether it is ultimately feasible, the issue of community governance has been taken seriously. This is the evolution of BCH.
Interestingly, based on the concept of rationalism, the differences from the birth of BCH, the change of difficulty adjustment rules, to this time are all mistakes, and we should correct the mistakes and return to the classics as CSW said. Only in accordance with the concept of evolutionism will the birth of BCH and this war be regarded as the evolution of Bitcoin. This is equivalent to admitting that Satoshi Nakamoto's "White Paper" does not provide a complete solution framework, and needs to adapt to the environment through evolution and gradually Complete.
secondary title
9. Conclusions and Suggestions
On the surface, the battle in the BCH community this time focuses on the two implementation versions of ABC and BSV, but the main difference between the two versions, CTOR, is not controversial enough to trigger a war. Behind the version dispute is the dispute between the two development routes of "returning to classics" and "exploring and updating". The two routes are long-term but not urgent, and BSV is still immature. It is difficult to explain the reason why CSW launched a war urgently. From the perspective of economic interests, the overall interests of the BCH community are consistent, and there is no direct conflict of interest between the two sides of the war.
This article analyzes that the root of the war is the difference between the two concepts of "rationalism" and "evolutionism". The rationalism of CSW believes that Satoshi Nakamoto's white paper has completed the basic framework for realizing the world currency, and it only needs to return to the earlier version and simply expand the capacity to achieve the goal. Wu Jihan and the author tend to Hayek's evolutionism, and believe that Bitcoin must continue to evolve in a highly competitive open environment.
In this war, differences in ideas are reflected in power struggles. The concept of evolutionism guides Jihan Wu and Bitmain to gradually realize the decentralization of power in the BCH community, while the concept of rationalism manifests itself in the high-profile establishment of personal authority by CSW, and accelerated its pace in early August to launch a campaign against Jihan Wu and the ABC team. series of attacks. The immediate goal is to prevent the planned upgrade of Bitcoin ABC version 0.18 on November 18th, which would be a landmark victory if successful.
In the comparison of combat power in this war, in terms of computing power, the ratio of computing power supporting Wu Jihan and supporting CSW is 12.5:1, and CSW has no chance of winning. However, with the help of the short-term mobilization ability and publicity means of rationalism, CSW not only established its own community of believers in the BCH community, but also attracted a large number of potential supporters, and created panic in the community through the threat of forking, gaining some publicity advantages . But as long as Wu Jihan and his supporters remain unmoved, computing power will ultimately determine the outcome.
The author himself is a staunch evolutionist, advocating freedom from the influence of various dogmas, improving and innovating in exploration to solve emerging new problems in the fields of technology, economy, politics, society, and ideology. Regarding the current divergence and subsequent development of BCH, the suggestions are as follows:
The Bitcoin ABC 0.18 upgrade on November 15, 2018 was completed according to the normal procedure.
0.18 After the upgrade and standardization of protocol documents are completed, a meeting will be organized covering developers, large currency holders, miners and mining pools, application companies, economic and political experts, etc., to discuss the consensus of generating BCH on the basis of the ABC roadmap and BSV roadmap Development roadmap.
(over)
On the basis of standardization document writing organizations and roadmap discussion meetings, further community governance models will be explored.
(over)
Editor's Note: In the author's opinion, Bitcoin Cash has continued Bitcoin's world currency development path since 2009, and the current BTC has deviated from this direction. From the author's personal perspective and the continuity of research, BCH is Bitcoin, and this war is a stage in the entire evolution history of Bitcoin.
https://share.bitkan.com/zh/article/blog/15001?from=ios&utm_campaign=APPShare&utm_source=ios&utm_content=15001&utm_medium=blog&bkfrom=appshare&bktarget=copylink
[1] The controversy over bitcoin expansion was the last evolutionary pain, and it also involved multi-level issues of economy, politics, and ideology. For related analysis, please refer to: Liu Changyong "The Battle for Capacity Expansion and the Political and Economic Prospects of Bitcoin" (2016)https ://www.8btc.com/article/113497
http://8btc.com/thread-222624-1-1.html
[4]Markblundeberg：《A technical dive into CTOR》
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9ehll3/a_technical_dive_into_ctor/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=comment_list
[5]BitcoinABC: 《The Bitcoin ABC Vision：Proposed Technical Roadmap for Bitcoin Cash》
https://www.bitcoinabc.org/2018-08-24-bitcoin-abc-vision/
[2] Liu Aihua: "The Impact of OP_DATASIGVERIFY on Oracle-based Smart Contracts"
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/2rvVPaATkPYotzT_sN8M3g
[3] Rawpool.com: "Analysis of Ctor Status in "BCH Technology Upgrade Debate""
[6] Jonald Fyookball "About Bitcoin Cash will add CTOR event in November"
https://weibo.com/ttarticle/p/show?id=2309404288868164718408#_0
[7] This is the reason why people once called the disagreement the "dispute over capacity expansion". The following shows that in fact, none of the parties opposes capacity expansion, but disagrees on the timing of capacity expansion.
https://share.bitkan.com/zh/article/blog/18867?from=ios&utm_campaign=APPShare&utm_source=ios&utm_content=18867&utm_medium=blog&bkfrom=appshare&bktarget=copylink
[8] See Lise, Taku "Run BU, use miners' voting mechanism to seek BCH upgrade plan"
https://weibo.com/ttarticle/p/show?id=2309404286084279321868#_0
[11]https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/1041691310367760384
[12]https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2644014/Tulip-Trust-Redacted.pdf
[9] The author clearly stated this point of view at the Bangkok Conference, see "Chang Yong's 7 Viewpoints at the Bangkok Conference"
http://www.iprdaily.cn/article_19746.html
[10] See written interview with CSW:
[13] See "2018 Global Blockchain Patent Enterprise Ranking List (TOP100)"
[14] from
https://weibo.com/ttaarticle/p/show?id=2309404286084279321868, this number is more than twice the sum of the top 20 global blockchain patents in 2018 (880).
https://www.8btc.com/article/113497
[15] See Hayek's "Individualism and Social Order" (Chapter 1 Individualism: True and False), Life and Reading New Knowledge Joint Publishing, Beijing, 2003.
[16] See Liu Chang's "The Expansion Controversy and the Political and Economic Prospects of Bitcoin"
[17] See the BBC report:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36168863, on the 5th, CSW announced that it would abandon the previously promised use of private keys to move early coins to prove identity.
[18] Dave Klieman died of illness in April 2013. In February 2018, Dave's younger brother filed a lawsuit against CSW, accusing CSW of illegally possessing a large amount of Dave's bitcoins.
[19] The ABC team failed to attend the meeting due to time conflicts.
[20] The actual release date is August 20.
[21] Not just the ABC team, but also other teams like BU.
[22] See Dr Craig S Wright's twitter from 8 August to 31 August.
https://coingeek.com/coingeek-sponsored-bitcoin-miners-meeting-bangkok-unanimously-supports-satoshi-vision-miners-choice/
[23] In fact, CoinGeek and BMG concentrated their computing power to mine BCH a week ago, pushing the proportion of computing power to more than 50% in 7 days. In fact, the mining algorithms of BCH and BTC are the same, while the price of BTC is more than 10 times higher, and the majority of computing power mines BTC. 50% of BCH's computing power is actually less than 5% of the total network computing power of BTC and BCH.
[24] See CoinGeek report:
[25] The computing power data is from btc.com on October 1.
https://share.bitkan.com/zh/article/blog/21105?from=ios&utm_campaign=APPShare&utm_source=ios&utm_content=21105&utm_medium=blog&bkfrom=appshare&bktarget=copylink
[26] The author agrees with many of CSW's views, such as decentralization due to competition, large companies should establish their own bottom-level development teams, and be cautious about anonymity, etc., but fundamentally opposes his rationalism, and emphasizes the establishment of Personal authority and the harm of a series of propaganda techniques have been criticized as "politicizing" and "doing things wrong to people".
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/lbmwOB6B8x_Pk1wT-BoJLw
[27] See Lightning: "The Game of Chickens on the Road and the Conflict of Bitcoin Cash Consensus Upgrades"
[28] For details of the author's views expressed at the Bangkok meeting, see:
https://coingeek.com/bitmain-resorts-threats-over-fragile-ipo/
[29] In fact, BCH has undergone two hard fork upgrades, the original chain fork. One was the upgrade of Rawpool mining pool in November 2017. Due to information blockage, it did not follow the upgrade. After many days, it was discovered that it was transferred back to the main chain, and it lost 3 blocks. The second time was in May 2018 when Core supporters took advantage of the BCH hard fork upgrade to maliciously retain the original chain and named it Bitcoin Cash Classic, and went to a small exchange, which has also been reset to zero.
https://www.8btc.com/article/172917
