THE DEBATE OVER BITCOIN EXPANSION(V）

Bifurcation and BCH stigma

Since the birth of BCH, it has been subjected to stigma attacks. The earliest attack was mainly because some people saw the fork as an attack on BTC. In the words of the two treasures, the "forking" of the BTC is "rape", and the later series of forked coins are "gang rape."_DJMINER

Interestingly, before the birth of BCH, Core's supporter, Lightning Mining Machine founder Liao Xiang regarded Wu Jihan's UAHF as an attack on the main chain, claiming that Wu Jihan dared to fork BTC, he would fork Wu Ji The new chain of cold, and organized the team to start splitting. However, after seeing the BCH fork, the total price of BTC and BCH did not fall and rose. Liao Xiang turned sharply and turned to BTC to establish BTG, and pre-digging 200,000 BTG.

In Liao Xiang's propaganda on BTG, the meaning of the fork is abrupt, and the BTG forked BTC is no longer an attack, but a competitor of the BCH, maintaining the orthodoxy of the BTC. Liao Xiang took advantage of the large number of Core supporters to get a lot of profit in the bull market, creating a series of pre-cut forks.

On the one hand, these forks are pre-excavated for profit. On the one hand, they all claim to be supporters of the BTC, and at the same time attack the BCH that was not pre-excavated and expanded due to expansion, attacking Wu Jihan. In addition to BTG Liao Xiang, there are also LBTC's point-paying Zhang Yinhai. "In the view of the founder of the LBTC and the founder of BTG, Liao Xiang and others, splitting the BTC to produce BCH is the result of Wu Jihan and Bitian mainland defending their own interests."  This is an early source of BCH misunderstanding. One and continues to this day.

In the 2018 bear market, Liao Xiang announced that the BTG was returned to the community, and other forked coins gradually disappeared. Among them, the famous LBTC except Zhang Yinhai and Li Xiaolai pre-excavated 210,000 SBTC (Super Bitcoin).

Regarding the long-term misunderstanding of BCH, in addition to thinking that BCH attacked BTC and believed that BCH initiators betrayed the New York Consensus, the most widely circulated is to regard BCH as the cryptocurrency created by bitter typhoon Wu Jihan, thus calling BCH Cold coins, "mines," "company coins," even "ChinaCoin," and so on.

Looking back at the difficult expansion history, it is not difficult to understand that BCH is actually a product of the growth of the expansion from Gavin. With the congestion of BTC and the increase of transaction fees, more and more people are aware of the importance of block expansion. Expansion. After experiencing XT, Gavin, Hong Kong consensus, and BU's repeated setbacks, it formed a firm expansion. The emergence of BCH as a New York consensus backup program is the result of the joint promotion of the expansion.

After the opening of BCH futures and spot trading, especially after the failure of the New York Consensus, the domestic and foreign firm expansionists turned to support BCH, such as Roger, Gavin and others. This brings continuous buying to BCH, pushes prices to continue to rise, attracts computing power to mine, and then drives ecological development. This made BCH the mainstream currency of the top four in the market in a short time.

Foreign large-capital holders in foreign countries, including Roger, Checksum0 and other BTC holders, have played a key role in the exchange of BCH. This is the result of the market comprehensive game, not the result of the “Bit Continental Pull”. Wu Jihan or Yang Haipo are unable to control the market. They just take advantage of the trend and do what they can at the critical moment of market and situation development. That part is integrated into the collective action of the firm expansionist.

Although Wu Jihan himself became a firm expansionist before and after the Hong Kong consensus, he did not intend to create a new currency to replace BTC, nor was it a decision maker of BCH. The main basis is:

1) Wu Jihan has never opposed SegWit. After the birth of BCH, he still mainly supports the New York Consensus SegWit2X;

2) After the implementation of SegWit, the advantage of Bitcoin's mining machine on BTC was not affected. Gregorg did not break the logic of Bitland's strong expansion of AsicBoost because it was not compatible with SegWit;

3) After the failure of the New York Consensus, Bitcoin was crowned with a “mineral fighter” capable of controlling more than 51% of the computing power, but never launched a power attack on the BTC. Even the BSV that attacks the BCH wildly has only the power defense. Without a power attack;

4) Wu Jihan has always advocated that “BTC is BTC, BCH is BCH” and advocates their own development, which is not mainstream in the BCH community for a long time. After the failure of the New York Consensus, most BCH supporters believe that BCH is the real bitcoin.

5) In 2017-2018, Wu Jihan proposed that “improved block time” and “mining pumping and raising fund” have not received wide support and have not been implemented.

Therefore, the so-called "Knocking Cold Coins", "Mine Bad Coins", and "Company Coins" are serious misunderstandings and are important manifestations of BCH stigma. These misunderstandings are mainly caused by:

1) The dispute of expansion is extremely complicated. It is difficult for outsiders to see the whole picture. People see that Wu Jihan has proposed UAHF, Yang Haipo Exchange takes the lead in launching BCH futures, and Viabtc mines dig out the first block, which is easy to label BCH. ;

2) Opposition forks, opposition block expanders and Core supporters are happy to tag and smear BCH to attack expansionists and fork supporters;

3) BCH brings unexpected impacts and even losses to exchanges and wallets lacking fork experience. For example, merchants who sell BTC for financial management need to compensate users for BCH, which has a large loss in the bull market and resentment against BCH. .

4) Enterprises or individuals with commercial interests in Bitland also attacked Bitian and Wu.

For most people, the most important reason is that the expansion of the dispute is too complicated. After the community splits, it is more willing and easier to believe the labeling logic circulating in the btc community: "Mine Ba Lapan Mine."_DJMINER

BIP91 "smart" wins

As time went by, BCH's stigma left a common misunderstanding: the birth of BCH led to the end of the New York consensus. The more malicious version of this misunderstanding is: Wu Jiuhan betrayed the New York Consensus and led to the failure of the New York Consensus. In fact, the external cause of the failure of the New York Consensus is Core's obstruction of expansion. The internal cause is a compromise of the New York Consensus: First, SegWit, lost the initiative, unable to harden the fork expansion. The rise of BCH is the result of the failure of the New York consensus, not the cause._DJMINER

On July 1st, the New York Consensus SegWit2x team officially released the "Milestone" public beta version 1.14.3. This version is activated with the bit-4 tag SegWit. After a period of time after SegWit is activated, 2M will be activated automatically. At this point, the "intended" signal support SegWit2x's computing power has reached 84.7%.

There are three conflicting solutions at this point in time: one is that Core's 95% computing power vote to activate the SegWit solution (BIP141), the other is to bypass the power of voting to activate SegWit's UASF (Bip148) solution, and the third is the New York Consensus first activated. SegWit then activates the 2M expansion of the SegWit2X solution. By mid-July, Core's Segwit program only had about 30% of the power to vote; the risk of confusion caused by UASF was great, and it was opposed by Core and Mining; the New York Consensus apparently had obvious advantages.

However, as mentioned earlier, the bit-4 marking the New York Consensus was preempted by James Hillard's BIP91 during the negotiation period, and the New York Consensus shared the bit-4 mark with BIP91. The BIP91 only contains SegWit and does not include 2X expansion. The power of the marker bit-4 can claim to be BIP91, not the New York consensus.

In the end, BIP91 won. In the words of Yong Yongquan, James Hillard became a "savior", and he proposed a "smart" solution - BIP91: 80% of the power vote can activate SegWit, and keep Bitcoin intact. The word "smart" seems more like a "conspiracy" in the expansionist school. It uses the compromise of the New York Consensus, uses BIP91 to conceal the power to vote, activates SegWit first, and then prevents 2M hard fork expansion, namely Yuki Wang. The so-called "scam". This is exactly what the firm expansion team has to guard against UAHF and BCH.

On July 20th, the bit-4 voter reached the goal of BIP91, BIP91 was locked and activated two days later. At the beginning of August, the support rate of BIP141 also reached 100%. SegWit was locked on August 9. At this point, the real test of the New York Consensus, the confrontation with Core to promote 2M hard fork expansion, has just begun.

On July 3rd after the release of the SegWit2X public beta, Core developer Luke Dashjr declared that SegWit2X was a delay to SegWit and would eventually fail. He said, "The block capacity of 4 to 8MB is meaningless. Even a 1MB block is very dangerous for Bitcoin. In any case, he will not agree with hard forks, but with soft Bifurcation to ensure the rationality of the block capacity. But even then, he will not support this solution (SegWit2x)," he supports BIP148 (UASF).

On August 2, Adam Back thought that SegWit2X should be postponed for six months, and that SegWit and Lightning Network should be fully promoted in order to avoid bifurcation.

On August 10th, according to the news, the SegWit2X client will no longer support the SegWit2X node, and the node running SegWit2X will not be able to connect to the Core 0.15.0 node, given that the SegWit activation is locked.This is a very extreme practice. The blow to SegWit2X is fatal, because if the Core version remains mainstream, then the SegWit2X mine, wallet, exchange, etc. will not be able to connect to the Bitcoin network.

In mid-August, the New York Consensus SegWit2X development team announced that it plans to implement 2M hard fork expansion at block height 494784. The actual time is about November 17. Since then, the attack against SegWit2X has become more intense.

On August 17th Bitpay released a simple blog post "Download btc1" (btc1 is the name of the SegWit2X beta version), which was heavily criticized by lightning network creator Tadge Dryja and Bitcoin Core contributor John Newbery. To this end, bitcoin.com bitcoin.org removed bitpay from the web.

On the same day, Bitcoin Core removed the main developer of SegWit2X, Jeff Garzik, in the Github codebase. Core developer Peter Todd explained that this is because Jeff Garzik opposed Core's position on the expansion issue and has never made an important contribution to the code base since 2014. Jeff Garzik believes that his delisting at this critical node is a revenge for his support for SegWit2X.

After the SegWit was activated, the struggle between the two sides of the expansion was heated up. Given the broad support that SegWit2X has received and the tough attitude of Core, especially the extreme measures of Core 0.15.0, many people believe that if the New York Consensus implements 2M expansion as planned in November, the Bitcoin network will once again fork. To this end, the community once again filled the panic of division._DJMINER