Today's recommended reading: 9.2 Teaching Chain Internal Reference " The Little-Known Story Behind Musk's Acquisition of Twitter ". Liu Jiaolian Pro " Fierce Debate: Is Bitcoin considered property?" ".
* * * Original by Liu Jiaolian * * *
People who have experienced the BCH hard fork war in 2017-2018 should still have lingering fears about the bloody storm of that year. Of course, for most people who entered the scene after World War I, they might not feel it. And people who have fully experienced that incident and chosen the wrong side in the bifurcation war may have lost all their wealth.
At that time, disputes over the Bitcoin expansion plan eventually led to a rupture between the miners (who advocated hard forks for physical expansion) and the developers (who advocated soft forks for logical expansion). The miners headed by Wu Jihan left with nearly half of their computing power, set up a separate company, forked the Bitcoin code, and copied Bitcoin's historical block data, with the intention of rebuilding a new Bitcoin that conforms to their vision.
Historical facts prove that they failed. But those who sold all their Bitcoins (BTC) and replaced them with new Bitcoins (BCH) in order to support them lost all their money.
Six years later, Bitcoin is in turmoil again. A new fork crisis appears to be looming. This time, will there be another bloody battle like before? Will investors and users face the test of using all their wealth to choose sides?
The subject of this controversy stems from two Bitcoin improvement proposals, BIP-0300 (hash rate custody) and BIP-0301 (blind mining merger), proposed by Paul Sztorc and others as early as 2017 and 2019. To this day, both proposals remain in draft form. But the people pushing them were impatient, launching a project called DriveChain. Through transmission chain technology, we can turn the Ethereum EVM chain into a Bitcoin side chain or a 2-layer chain, and we can also run other 2-layer chains, and Bitcoin miners provide the hash rate to ensure the side chain or 2-layer chain. security. It sounds a bit similar to a roll-up based on Bitcoin layer 1. The layer 2 chain compresses and hashes 3-6 months of data and writes it back to layer 1 to drive asset transfers on layer 1.
The real difficulty here is whether Bitcoin miners have the ability to verify the data coming from the layer 2 chain. Of course, judging from the hint of the name, we expect that the miners will not verify, so the miners can't do much more than mindlessly accepting the data and fixing it to the block. This is similar to the current plug-in protocol ordinal. Bitcoin miners do not deal with the security of the plug-in protocol. Different from ordinal, the drivechain proposal requires Bitcoin to undergo a soft-fork (soft fork) before it can be implemented. This intrusion into the consensus layer may give users and the market an illusion that Bitcoin miners can really guarantee Layer 2 security - and it can't be done. This may lead to a large number of false marketing and fraud problems, thereby tarnishing the reputation of Bitcoin miners and even Bitcoin.
Bitcoin developer Jimmy Song recently posted on his personal Twitter about this matter, with fierce words. The translation is as follows for your reference:
The Case for a Chain Split
Chain split case
The debate surrounding drivechains has been heating up, with proponents employing various tactics to garner support. This divisive issue echoes previous disputes in the Bitcoin community, such as the 2017 block size controversy. As such, we should consider what was then the definitive resolution: a chain split.
The debate surrounding drivetrains has been heating up, with proponents using a variety of tactics to gain support. This divisive issue echoes previous controversies in the Bitcoin community, such as the 2017 block size controversy. Therefore, we should consider the ultimate solution at that time: chain splitting.
A significant portion of the Bitcoin community rejects drivechains, effectively blocking its implementation via a soft fork. Bitcoin's voluntary nature makes it resistant to hostile takeovers, despite claims that miners could force the change. Disagree with that last statement? Then let's put that to the test. We can resolve this posturing and propaganda by forking the code.
A large portion of the Bitcoin community rejects DriveChain, effectively blocking its implementation via a soft fork. The voluntary nature of Bitcoin makes it resistant to hostile takeovers, although there are claims that miners can force changes. Don't agree with that last statement? So let's test it. We can address this posturing and publicity by forking the code.
Here's how it would work: Code implementing drivechains would be released. Those who support the proposal can run this code. A transaction that goes against drivechain rules but adheres to pre-drivechain rules will trigger a chain split. Those running the drivechain software wouldn't be doing anything, but nodes that aren't can reject the drivechain chain by using the "invalidateblock" command. The result will be two distinct Bitcoins: one with drivechains and one without.
Here's how it works: Publish the code that implements the drive chain. People who support the proposal can run this code. Transactions that violate the rules of the drive chain but comply with the rules before the drive chain will trigger a chain split. Nodes that are running drivechain software will do nothing, but nodes that are not running drivechain software can reject drivechain using the "invalidateblock" command. The result would be two different Bitcoins: one with a drive chain and one without.
This approach was resolved the conflict we had in August 2017, when Bitcoin Cash split off from Bitcoin. Similarly, proponents and opponents of drivechains can either hold or sell their respective Bitcoins post-split. This would be a real-world test of control and game theory within the network.
This approach resolves the conflict that occurred when Bitcoin Cash separated from Bitcoin in August 2017. Likewise, proponents and opponents of Transmission Chain can hold or sell their respective Bitcoins after the split. This will be a real-world test of cybernetics and game theory within networks.
I advocate for this split not just for potential profits, but also because it's a peaceful solution. It would let us see in real time how convicted the drivechain people are. Will drivechain miners support it if it means mining at a loss? A chain split would serve as a critical learning opportunity for the community, providing a clear answer to the ongoing debate. Ultimately, this will strengthen Bitcoin by showing the market how hard it is to change its properties.
I advocate this split not only for the potential profits, but also because it is a peaceful solution. It allows us to see in real time how strong the belief of driveline people is. If it means mining at a loss, will the transmission chain miners support it? The chain fork will provide an important learning opportunity for the community and provide clear answers to the ongoing debate. Ultimately, this will strengthen Bitcoin by showing the market how difficult it is to change its properties.
So bring it on! Fork or shut up.
So come on! Fork or shut up.
Friends who are familiar with Jimmy Song know that he may be one of the hawkish developers best suited to be labeled as Bitcoin maximalist. His remarks were quite shocking. Many people were shocked and commented under his post, accusing him of being careless and irresponsible for speaking like this. Some people say that it was originally a soft fork, so why encourage a hard fork? This is a normal discussion about the improvement of Bitcoin, why is it so heated? Looking at the conversation between everyone and Jimmy, suddenly some people suddenly thought that the competition that was originally just a competition at Ermao's house, why did you, the emperor, threatened to amplify the mushroom's sense of deja vu. Hehehe.
Hard forks are similar to giant mushrooms in that they are a strategic deterrent. Strategic deterrence means conquering the enemy without fighting. What relies on it is that human nature is good at economic calculations and will not make loss-making transactions. The masters exchanged blows, and both sides thought silently for a long time, and then walked away, saving many lives from suffering. If the level is not enough, or the concentration is not enough, then you have to get angry, don't fight for steamed buns, lose the economic calculation, start an army in anger, and start a competition, then you will already be at a disadvantage.
* * * Original by Liu Jiaolian * * *
Recommended reading today: 9.2 Teaching Chain Internal Reference " The Little-Known Story Behind Musk's Acquisition of Twitter "
Welcome to follow and read more original articles by Liu Jiaolian:
(Public account: Liu Jiaolian. Knowledge Planet: The public account replies "Planet")
(Disclaimer: None of the content in this article constitutes any investment advice. Cryptocurrency is an extremely high-risk product and may return to zero at any time. Please participate with caution and be responsible for yourself.)