Op-ed: why people choose onchain scaling and oppose Core and SW
Note: Author of the op-ed is Dr. Liu Changyong. He is also a supporter of BU. Several days ago he summarized 6 reasons to support BU in the “Bitcoin Unlimited” wechat group.
1. In the beginning, SW scaling roadmap was supported by almost everyone and Hongkong agreement was reached. However, the Core Devs ceased to proceed with onchain scaling after release of SW. Instead they turned to support LW and against onchain scaling, showing a strong preference for small block.
I don’t trust Core because I am worried that Core would cease onchain scaling after SW and the SW+LN feature will turn Bitcoin from a p2p currency into a settlement network.
2. According to the SW specs, the transaction format will be modified and a hybrid of transaction formats will co-exist, which greatly increase the system complexity. Also we don’t see any mature plan for post-SW scaling via hardfork, which means that no onchain scaling will be possible after implantation of SW. Looking at the market demands and network congestion in the past six months, the 1.7 times scaling offered by SW cannot meet the current demands. If network congestion persists, Bitcoin will lose its market share and first-mover advantages.
What concerns us more is that the long-term congestion and the restrictions on the market demand for mainnet might be exactly what the Core wants. That’s the only way to force the community to accept small block size, to accept SW+LN and to give up onchain scaling. This would turn mainnet into a settlement network which big financial enterprises could afford to use. It’s a major monopoly opportunity for some enterprises but a fatal blow to the Bitcoin network.
I talked about this in detail in an article: “The scaling dispute and the political and economic prospects of Bitcoin”
4. Right now the most pressing issue of Bitcoin network is not malleability. After the collapse of MtGox, most enterprises can handle the problem. The most important thing now is to increase block size to meet the rapidly growing market demands. Obviously the Core doesn’t think so.
From the perspective of technical preferences, the anarchist ideals and Blockstream’s monopoly position of SW + LN system in the future, Core believes the market is not important. This shows that Bitcoin as an economic system has gone beyond the control of a technical team. The technical team is very arrogant and refuse to accept any suggestions and opinions, and even control speech in the r\bitcoin. The censorship results in the loss of trust to them from many people.
5, From a technical point of view, many people points out that the changes made by SW may bring some major potential risks, solution of which are not fully discussed to reach a consensus. I am not professional in terms of technology. I will listen to other people’s opinion.
6, SW is not the only solution to the malleability issue, solution of which is still possible after implementation of BU. However onchain scaling is unlikely if SW is realized. By then market opportunities have long gone.
In short, in order to solve the most important issue, the market demand, and to ensure that bitcoin still serve as a p2p currency instead of settlement network, people should choose to support BU and oppose Core and its SW.