{"id":93371,"date":"2018-11-15T18:30:49","date_gmt":"2018-11-16T02:30:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cryptoslate.com\/?p=93371"},"modified":"2026-04-16T15:20:17","modified_gmt":"2026-04-16T14:20:17","slug":"explained-bitcoin-cash-hash-wars-where-the-factions-stand-on-the-issues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cryptoslate.com\/explained-bitcoin-cash-hash-wars-where-the-factions-stand-on-the-issues\/","title":{"rendered":"Explained: Bitcoin Cash Hash Wars, Where the Factions Stand on the Issues"},"content":{"rendered":"

Recently, there has been a storm brewing in Bitcoin Cash<\/a> (BCH). Two upgrades to the underlying software of Bitcoin Cash threaten to split the coin in two, and both factions are determined to fight all-or-nothing to determine the fate of Bitcoin Cash\u2019s next upgrade.<\/p>\n

Background on Bitcoin Cash<\/h2>\n

Bitcoin Cash was conceived of in July 2017 as part of a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP 91<\/a>). At the time, the Bitcoin community was opposed to upgrades in Bitcoin\u2019s block size and a feature called SegWit. These changes would reduce transaction fees and increase Bitcoin\u2019s throughput.<\/p>\n

Roger Ver claimed that the refusal to upgrade benefitted investors over those who wanted to use the crypto as cash, as per inventor Satoshi Nakamoto\u2019s vision.<\/p>\n

Much like the war going on now, the communities declared a split and miners staked their sides. The two branches of Bitcoin have since separated, the longer one retaining the Bitcoin<\/a> namesake and the other becoming Bitcoin Cash<\/a>.<\/p>\n

A Fight for Supremacy over BCH<\/h2>\n

Now another dispute has arisen, and it threatens to divide the Bitcoin Cash community. Every six months the Bitcoin Cash protocol hard forks to encourage the development of new features and upgrades.<\/p>\n

Recently, factions have formed to lobby for which changes should be made, with the crux of the disputes revolving around how aggressively Bitcoin Cash should be upgraded and which faction should have defacto decision-making power over the currency.<\/p>\n

On the spectrum, these factions are arguing whether a) the protocol should change quickly to keep up with other blockchains, or b) should change gradually to ensure that the Bitcoin Cash remains stable and secure.<\/p>\n

Major factions have formed around different versions of the Bitcoin Cash software. Below is a non-exclusive list of the factions competing to upgrade the protocol:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. In the lead, the conservative party Bitcoin ABC, advocated by Roger Ver<\/a> et. al.<\/li>\n
  2. In second place, the compromise\u00a0and technocrat party Bitcoin Unlimited lead by Andrew Clifford.<\/li>\n
  3. And trailing both other factions, the reform party Bitcoin S.V. (Satoshi's Vision) lead by Craig Wright<\/a> and supported by Calvin Ayre<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Miners Stake Their Sides<\/h2>\n

    To further complicate the mix, two of the biggest miners in Bitcoin Cash have staked sides: Bitmain and CoinGeek. Both miners have sufficient hash power to seriously disrupt the Bitcoin Cash network.<\/p>\n

    By attacking each other's forks, these miners can cause long transaction delays, prevent transactions from getting submitted to the blockchain properly, and even invalidate transactions entirely.<\/p>\n

    Overview of the Main Factions<\/h2>\n

    Bitcoin ABC<\/a> \u201cConservative Party\u201d
    \n<\/strong>Supporters:     Roger Ver<\/a>, Jihan Wu<\/a>, John McAfee
    \nNotable Backers: Bitcoin Foundation, Bitcoin.com
    \nInstitutional Miner: Bitmain<\/p>\n

    Bitcoin S.V.<\/a> \u201cReform Party\u201d
    \n<\/strong>Supporters:     Craig Wright<\/a>, Calvin Ayre
    \nNotable Backers: CalvinAyre.com, nChain, Bitcoin.org
    \nInstitutional Miner: CoinGeek<\/p>\n

    Bitcoin Unlimited<\/a> \u201cCompromise Party\u201d<\/strong>
    \nSupporters:     Andrew Clifford<\/a>
    \nNotable Backers: Bitcoin Cash software developers
    \nInstitutional Miners: Antpool, BTC.TOP (mining pools)<\/p>\n

    Where They Stand on the Issues<\/h2>\n

    Bitcoin ABC's Stance<\/a> on Issues<\/h3>\n

    I. Limit Transaction Sizes and Retain Current Block Size for Greater Security:<\/strong>
    \nTransaction size represents the number of bytes contained in any one transaction conducted on a blockchain. A limit of transaction sizes could prevent a very expensive attack on a certain type of Bitcoin Cash wallet (SPV wallets), although opponents say that this is unlikely because of the cost, so an upgrade is not necessary.<\/p>\n

    Retention of current block size at 32MB is a stance to help combat centralization.\u00a0If block sizes increase, then only huge data centers can mine Bitcoin Cash. This means greater centralization and provides more potential ways to fork Bitcoin Cash by means of something called “poison blocks<\/a>.”<\/p>\n

    II. Introduce Opcode OP_CHECKDATSIGVERYIFY (abbr. DVS on social media):<\/strong>
    \nOpcodes are a special kind of computer logic that programmers use to improve and build software. This particular opcode would allow programmers to validate messages from outside the BCH blockchain, enabling oracles and cross-chain atomic contracts. Some oppose this feature because it could enable gambling to occur on BCH, which is prohibited in some jurisdictions.<\/p>\n

    III.\u00a0Canonical Transaction Ordering:<\/strong>
    \nA feature that places special rules on how transactions are ordered on the Bitcoin Cash blockchain. This feature is more preparation than anything else, allowing for future upgrades to the Bitcoin Cash protocol. In an announcement from ABC, they say it would allow for “massive scaling and improvements in the future.”<\/p>\n

    Bitcoin S.V.'s Stance<\/a> on the Issues<\/h3>\n

    I. Allow Miners to Mine Bigger Blocks:<\/strong>
    \nS.V. would allow miners to mine blocks up to 128MB in size, up from the past limit of 32MB. This change would allow miners to elect to mine and accept vastly larger blocks, potentially increasing the maximum number of transactions that could be conducted on the Bitcoin Cash blockchain. This might be irrelevant though, considering that within the last three months block size has only ranged from 50KB to 3MB, far below the current cap. The largest block ever mined on BCH has been 8MB.<\/p>\n

    II.\u00a0Reactivate Additional Opcodes:<\/strong>
    \nProponents of S.V. want to include the following opcodes:<\/p>\n

      \n
    • OP_MUL<\/li>\n
    • OP_LSHIFT<\/li>\n
    • OP_RSHIFT<\/li>\n
    • OP_INVERT<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      These opcodes would allow developers to do and build more on Bitcoin Cash. Some developers oppose the proposed change because the “proposal came too late, it missed the generally-agreed-upon spec and code deadlines,” suggesting that instead of splitting the community that it should be proposed in the next soft vote.\u00a0A technical explanation of these opcodes is available here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

      III.\u00a0Remove Script Instruction Cap:<\/strong>
      \nA script is a program that is interpreted by the Bitcoin Cash software. The script instruction cap is how many instructions, or operations, these scripts can perform in one go. A removal of this cap would allow more complex scripts to run on BCH. But, it would also give hackers more ways to potentially disrupt BCH. Moreover, opponents say that there is no current use case where programmers would need to exceed this cap.<\/p>\n

      Bitcoin Unlimited's Stance<\/a> on the Issues<\/h3>\n

      I. Compromise and Incorporate Features from Both Sides:<\/strong>
      \nAs       said<\/a> by renowned Bitcoin Cash developer ‘theZerg,' President of Bitcoin Unlimited posted in a technical forum: “The Bitcoin Unlimited client will incorporate features from both organizations,” and by means of\u00a0the new voting mechanism parties could include or exclude features as voted.<\/p>\n

      II.\u00a0Lower the Voting Threshold for Soft Forks:<\/strong>
      \nThe Unlimited faction wants to implement features (      BIP 135<\/a>) that lowers the threshold for soft forking Bitcoin Cash. Currently, the percentage is set at 95 percent. As stated in the proposal, the changes would allow for a “spectrum of contentiousness to be represented” and prevent “small minorities from vetoing proposed changes” which can lead to stagnation in Bitcoin Cash upgrades and features.<\/p>\n

      III. Improve How Voting is Conducted for Miners:<\/strong>
      \nCurrently, miners can vote which upgrades they support instead of hard forking the chain. These votes are conducted roughly every 14 minutes. After the change,\u00a0 proposed software changes that aren't voted would be automatically removed from the miner's software after a predetermined amount of time.<\/p>\n

      Descent into Vitriol<\/h2>\n

      With so much at stake, many of the major proponents of each platform have taken to social media to broadcast their arguments for their faction. Spectators can see the conversation descend into bickering and personal attacks.<\/p>\n

      Many of these comments revolve around Craig Wright. His controversial claims around the S.V. proposal, attacks against opponents, and past claims of being Satoshi Nakamoto have whipped Twitter into a frenzy.<\/p>\n

      Below is an example of the comments by Wright attacking ABC pillars Jihan Wu<\/a>, Bitmain co-founder, and Roger Ver:<\/p>\n

      \n

      If @jihanwu<\/a>, @Rogerver<\/a> & ABC devs want to make #Permissionless<\/a> Kiddie porn sites and Silk Road Version2.0<\/p>\n

      They can piss off to #Dash<\/a><\/p>\n

      They are NOT adding this to #BCH<\/a><\/p>\n

      This is the ONLY real use case they have and it is not happening!<\/p>\n

      — Dr Craig S Wright (@ProfFaustus) November 8, 2018<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n