Bitcoin Civil War Can Split the Currency in Two 

A meteoric rise in popularity for cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin in particular, has led to an ongoing debate and increasing level of disagreement between miners and core developers on how Bitcoin should move forward.

Core developers have been looking at how Bitcoin software can be adapted to accommodate for the ever increasing number of transactions and also meet the rising demand for Bitcoins, the unprecedented returns continuing to drive demand, fears of a Bitcoin bubble having eased in recent months.

The debate has ultimately created a lot of hype and the threat of derailing Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, with Bitcoin prices in recent months reflective of how the debate heated up and progressed through to the current support for BIP91.

In fact, the debate became so intense that the chances of a Bitcoin fork split had become almost probably just a week ago, the prospect of two Bitcoin blockchains expected to, not only lead to issues as a result of the co-existence of two ledgers, but also the possibility of Bitcoins actually disappearing, leaving holders of the coins with empty wallets, all of which would be a prelude to an even more heated debate over which blockchain would be considered the real Bitcoin going forward, for those left standing.

Get Into Bitcoin Trading Today

On one side of the intense disagreement is the Bitcoin Cartel and on the other are Bitcoin’s core developers, the disagreement being over how to address the issues faced with the ever increasing number of transactions and demand for Bitcoins.

As things stand, Bitcoin blocks have a storage capacity of 1MB. The increased level of congestion has led to lengthening transaction verification timeframes and rising transaction fees.

Both sides proposed solutions on how to resolve the issues faced, with neither side being able to come to an agreement on a preferred solution going forward, leading to the great divide.

The decentralized nature of Bitcoin has made the disagreement public and not behind the closed doors of a boardroom that would be common within the corporate world.

Solutions proposed in the run up to BIP91 included BIP148, SegWit2x and Bitcoin unlimited, though there were others that had less support, thus garnering less debate.

The more contentious proposals include:

BIP148: BIP148 is scheduled to be triggered on 1^st August and is classified as a User Activated Soft Fork (“UASF”). BIP148 requires that miners signal for SegWit readiness, which is achieved by miners setting the version of blocks mined, essentially affirming miner support for the rules of SegWit. Bitcoin’s core development team are against BIP148.

Segwit2x: Segwit2x involves the activation of Segregated Witness at the required 80% threshold and the activation of a 2 MB hard fork within 6-months of the SegWit activation.

Bitcoin Unlimited: As the name suggests, the solution is to deliver miners the freedom to increase blockchain size, which would remove the congestion issues and transaction times and fees faced by miners today.

SegWit Versus Segwit2x

With all the talk of SegWit and Segwit2x, it’s becoming ever more important for miners and holders of Bitcoin to have a far greater understanding of the mechanics that dictate valuations beyond hashrates and the standard supply and demand equation.

Segregated Witness, referred to as SegWit, is the process of addressing the limit of an increase in the block size limit by removing signature data from the transactions, which eases capacity issues enabling more transactions and increasing verification speeds.

Multiple systems across Bitcoin blockchain’s peer-to-peer network, referred to as nodes, are the administrators of Bitcoin transactions. Transaction inputs and outputs are duplicated across the nodes, the input being the public address of the sender, with the output being the public address of the recipient.

The input data leads to the biggest capacity issues, with input data including signatures, which forms part of the verification process on the sender having the required funds to make payment, the information being included in the active block and then the general ledger. The signature content of the input accounts for more than 60% of the space taken by a given transaction.

As more transactions occur and more blocks are created, the 1MB maximum size of each block limits the number of transactions per block.

SegWit looks to shift the signature component from the input phase to the end of the transaction, which is estimated to increase the 1MB block size limit to slightly below 4MB.

SegWit2x is a combination of SegWit and a 2MB hard fork, to be activated 3-months after the activation of SegWit.

SegWit has been in the making for some time and has led to various BIPs as a result, these being BIP141; BIP148 and BIP149., with the developers having tested each extensively, quite unlike SegWit2x, which is viewed by many to have been untested and not ready for implementation.

The issues facing Bitcoin boil down to the possibility of both a soft and hard fork, which has raised the alarm bells amongst some holders of Bitcoin over the safety and valuation of holdings on various exchanges.

There has been a lot of talk and speculation of what is likely to take place on 1^st August, with news of increased support for two proposals in particular, raising the possibility of a Bitcoin blockchain split, leading to two versions of Bitcoin running on separate blockchains.

For SegWit to occur, there will need to be 80% of Bitcoin miners in support, which appears to have already been reached, where SegWit2x will deliver the SegWit, with a 2MB block size increase then scheduled for November.

The issue of a split comes as there remains disagreement on a proposed increase to the block size and with SwgWit2x and the user-activated soft fork, commonly referred to as BIP148, inter-connected, SegWit2 supporters looking to push through the 2MB increase to the blockchain by way of a user-activated hard fork (UAHF”) may result in the much talked about split, though it’s not just the hard fork that can cause the split, the “UASF” also capable of creating a split should there be sufficient support for their version of the blockchain to continue, whilst others push for the hard fork, ultimately resulting in a Bitcoin split.

The difference between a UASF and UAHF is that a soft fork is a temporary divergence in the blockchain create by non-upgraded nodes not following new consensus rules, whilst a hard fork is a permanent divergence in the blockchain.

So, What’s Next?

While a blockchain split may be averted, the reality remains that the positives of establishing cryptocurrencies and a decentralized virtual currency have been lost to a certain extent, with a handful of mining pools garnering such sizeable hashrates that has led to what some will refer to as the Bitcoin Cartel, in stark contrast to the ethos of a decentralized virtual currency and more akin to the push and pull seen between central banks and governments, independence continuously being questioned.

We’ve seen OPEC’s influence on oil price stability and in recent months, the influence of the Bitcoin Cartel is certainly evident, support for a particular SegWit dictating the direction of, not only Bitcoin, but price stability across the Crypto world.

Until miners entering the fray embrace the entire concept of decentralization and support the smaller mining pools and cloud mining service providers, the Cartel will continue to influence and ultimate control will reside with a few.

Price volatility will likely persist, the Cartel unlikely to loosen their grip, the income from the control too high for a more decentralized environment, the value of Bitcoin needing to see a sizeable fall to really hurt the Cartel and mining appetite that has contributed to the Cartel’s tightening grip on the Bitcoin world.

The days ahead are certainly of particular importance to the direction of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general, over the short-term, but in reality there is only one event that needs to be averted and that is a blockchain split, other coding changes unlikely to have a material impact on valuations for now.

Over the longer-term, as the market becomes more educated on the likely influences that a Bitcoin Cartel may have, not only on Bitcoin, but also other Cryptocurrencies, the effects may be considered as a negative for market and any hopes of Bitcoin’s value making its move towards $10,000, a value that has been thrown around in recent weeks, optimism over the eventual outcome having brought out the cryptocurrency optimists that have supported the exponential rise in valuations seen through the first half of the.

Get Into Bitcoin Trading Today