The Bitcoin Network is facing a new chapter of internal tensions that remember historical conflicts such as the 2015-2017 block-sized war.
The conflict split the community between those who wanted a bigger block for faster transactions and those who prioritized decentralization. That story Triggered branch And the creation of Bitcoin Cash, the virtually unused network of today.
In this case, and as Cryptootics reported, the conflict is between customer users Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Knot. The difference exists for Bitcoin’s purpose as a financial system (knot), and expands its use in non-financial data (Core).
The conflict escalated after the developer Created a black list of reachable nodes for bitcoin knots,This suggests an attempt to isolate users of this client.
According to Cindance data, at the time of this article, Bitcoin Core operates 86% of the nodes, and about 19,000 out of the approximately 22,300. For that part, Bitcoin Knot already represents 14% (3,100) of the nodes, and has grown rapidly over the last few months, You fall into the number of core operators.
Secondly, if the Bitcoin Knot Runners’ percentage increases to 30/40% of the total and the current contradictions are maintained, is this “customer war” a fork, or a real prelude to a deep philosophical conflict?
Differences and opinions of Bitcoin Client Defenders
This tension is reflected in X’s discussion. For example, core collaborator Peter Todd said: «There is a good argument to ban knot nodes. They don’t help spread the deal What do you want to spread?»
To that comment, the person responded: «Peter Todd makes it clear: You should be forbidden Knots if necessary spamyou should use the core if necessary spam. If not, you probably need to use knots ».
On his part, the developer who devised that blacklist said the knot node was distorted Rate estimates and increases the delay in block propagationpointing out that the situation affects network efficiency.
Additionally, the core collaborators in a controversial announcement argued that “the freedom to run any software is the main protection of the network against coercion.” Accepting non-monatary uses It is currently registered on the network created by Nakamoto AT.
Main knot maintenance Luke Dashul wrote on July 1st to highlight the difference. They are working on what they are interested in, I am interested. But that’s not possible While they are actively trying to destroy Bitcoin ».
Is there a real possibility of a Bitcoin branching?
Branch (Hard Form) occurs when protocol updates are not compatible with previous versions, forcing nodes and miners to choose from two chains.
If the adoption of knot nodes reaches a higher percentage (e.g. 30-40% of nodes) and there is minor support, there may be sufficient impulses to suggest changes to the consensus rules. How to limit op_return or impose a required filter for a transaction.
In the current scenario where Knot implements rules that reject blocks in large OP_Return transactions, Core accepts them and causes splitting into the bitcoiner community.
but, 14% of the nodes used by knots are still a small number compared to 86% cores. Furthermore, there is no evidence that miners who are responsible for verifying the block and are essential to consensus employ mass knots.
Bitconner, who calls himself evil in X, warns: «This is how we started discussing the big block. There are paths where filters can cause chain splits, but I don’t think they have the courage to do so».
The “blockchain” technology enthusiast then added: Hard Form From Bitcoin Cash. Currently, Op_return and retransmission policies may trigger a second civil war and provide lessons on distributed governance».
These positions show that differences in opinion regarding the purpose of retransmission policies and Bitcoin can be climbed towards a branch in extreme scenarios, but the lack of unidirectional consensus by specific groups of basic rules maintains this possibility in the field of speculation.
If these philosophical differences move to a Disagreements regarding consensus rules (the basic norms that all nodes must follow to verify the block) can potentially bring about incompatible suggestions for splitting the network into two.
Hard fork failure
Despite the tension, there are factors that suggest it Hard Form It’s not likely in the short term.
First, the core-knot conflict focuses on member policies (rules applied to each node to prioritize transactions in temporary memory) It’s not a consensus rulethe unshakable pillar of Bitcoin.
These rules define the following basic aspects: 21 million Bitcoin supply limitor the requirements for the transaction to be enabled (for example, the correct encryption company).
If miners reject the transaction, these rules remain immunity for current debate. Another thing can verify itMaintains network integrity.
Differences in criteria between nodes do not divide the network unless censorship, such as systematic rejection of blocks, becomes a serious issue.
Therefore, Hard Form This occurs when a consensus rule change is proposed that is not compatible with previous versions of the software. This means that nodes adopting the new rules will reject the nodes of the old rules and accept the opposite block, resulting in two separate blockchains.
Another important issue of Hard Form That’s him Economic and operational impacts. The branching creates two chains with the same history up to the moment of division, as happened with Bitcoin Cash in 2017, allowing Bitcoin holders to claim coins in the new chain, increasing nominal value.
But perhaps knot-minority chains will have less adoption and market value, creating volatility to support it without consensus for the majority, discouraging custodians.
Furthermore, the previous transaction Hard Form They are shared, but the rest are independent, and while risks such as repeated attacks can be mitigated by technical means, they add operational complexity to network actors.
However, the rapid growth of the Bitcoin Knot operator is Dissatisfaction with Bitcoin Core Policy. This trend continues, and if the knot gains support in the Bitconner community, it could result in suggestions to change consensus rules and open the final door. Hard Form.
The “customer war” continues, but the Bitcoin network continues to sail on the tensions that define the current conflict: the original vision of innovation and fidelity.
