Just recently Bitcoin.com reported on a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) written by Calvin Rechner that was recently submitted to the developer’s mailing list. There is another plan in the works initiated by Bitcoin developer and Bloq CEO, Jeff Garzik, that aims to combine Segwit and a 2MB block size increase. On May 30 Garzik addressed the community detailing his thoughts on bitcoin’s current throughput issues and the proposed scaling solutions’ intentions.
A Possible Scaling Solution to an ‘Entirely Predictable and Avoidable Outcome’
The bitcoin scaling discussion has been an ongoing ferocious debate that has lasted for years. Now there are multiple conversations taking place discussing different ways to scale like using alternative implementations of bitcoin’s code, a user-activated soft fork, extension blocks, emergent consensus, and just recently Barry Silbert’s idea. The suggestion announced by Silbert’s company the Digital Currency Group (DCG) is an agreement based off of RSK’s chief scientist, Sergio Demian Lerner’s Segwit-2MB proposal. Furthermore, Silbert claims to have backing from 56 companies and over 84 percent of hashrate support.
Garzik has been working on a solution called “Consensus SegWit2x signaling on bit 4” which is available for viewing on Github. At the moment the pull request has quite a few developers discussing the idea and reviewing the code. There are also quite a few programmers that disagree with the concept in its entirety, or parts of the proposal, while there are others who are supportive of the compromise idea. On May 30 Garzik addressed the bitcoin ‘community’ in a personal blog post called “A personal note to the Bitcoin community.”
“An entirely predictable and avoidable outcome — skyrocketing fees and network at max capacity — has come to pass, with the predicted results,” explains Garzik.
Base block size was not increased, despite having years to plan the upgrade, years to avoid the preventable consequences of high fees driving away use cases and users away from Bitcoin. Failure to increase a temporary DoS limit — base block size limit — has direct, measurable, negative economic consequences.
Measurable Data and Outcomes Trump Conspiracies
The developer also says it doesn’t matter who played a particular role but “upgrading base block size did not occur.” Moreover, Garzik details that measurable data has, and always will cut through “silly conspiracy theories.” According to his post, the community should rely more heavily on the outcome of efforts rather than these theories.
The Segwit2x Working Group has a specific charter, with a specific, openly stated goal: Segwit + 2M base block size increase — The community should judge these efforts based on outcome
Garzik concludes by saying he hopes the community can judge by viewing “those who act, and produce measurable outcomes.” He believes doing so is far superior to resorting to personal attacks and spreading conspiracies. “I ask everyone who wants a better, brighter, more positive Bitcoin community to start here: Be Good To Each Other and let’s build good code,” Garzik adds.
An Opportunity to Provide Feedback and Help Improve
The blog post was submitted to multiple bitcoin forums and some of them submitted by Garzik himself. Of course, a few people disliked the idea, while others supported the concept of moving scaling along and bolstering a compromise. One bitcoin developer who has been a staunch supporter of the user activated solution, Eric Lombrozo, detailed his opinion on the proposal stating, “It’s beyond repair. I will continue to support BIP148 (UASF).” However, the DCG founder Barry Silbert immediately disagreed with Lombrozo’s statements.
“Beyond repair?” Sibert says, responding to Lombrozo.
They literally just put it up on GitHub to give everybody the opportunity to provide feedback and help improve
It’s still hard to tell what the “outcome” of the scaling debate will be and if the community will back the Segwit-2MB proposal idea. Nevertheless, it looks as though bitcoin proponents are trying to figure it out more so than ever before.
What do you think about the Segwit2x Working Group proposal? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.