If you haven’t heard already, there are several forks coming.
In mid-November, a group is planning to initiate the SegWit2X fork, the protocol change embedded in the BTC1 software seeking to raise the block size to 2MB in addition to using SegWit to strip digital signature data.
SegWit2X is highly controversial, to say the least. The project was initially mediated as the New York Agreement, a compromise between the warring camps of the scaling debate. The plan was to upgrade the SegWit chain to increase the capacity of the network from ~250,000 transactions per day to ~500,000 transactions per day within six months from May 2017, when the consensus was reached.
And with only a month to go before the fated day, the gloves are coming off.
New industry naming standards proposed for Bitcoin and Segwit branches of “Bitcoin” public blockchain.
With the coming forks and changes, CalvinAyre.com and several other media organizations are reclassifying the nomenclature used when talking about the cryptocurrency.
We are of the belief that Bitcoin Cash (BCC) is the true remaining Bitcoin as intended by the original Satoshi white paper, which was immutably embedded in the blockchain back in 2009. The SegWit chain may have inherited the name “BTC” largely due to history but it is Bitcoin Cash that much more closely resembles the Bitcoin that sparked the entire digital currency boom.
The branches that we will no longer consider Bitcoin are SegWit1X (currently BTC, and likely SW1 after the SegWit2X split), SegWit2X (planned BTC, but likely SW2 after the fork if it fails to achieve majority miner support), and Segwit Gold (SWG). Both SegWit1X and SegWit2X entail high transaction fees and determining their business models are an exercise in futility, although Segwit Chains can still be used as a inefficient (Compared to BCC) institutional value transfer system.
SWG, a project led by Jack Liao of Hong Kong mining firm Lightning ASIC, is seeking to change the proof-of-work algorithm, which means that it will lose the network of computers that secure the network. SWG is essentially the same as SegWit1X but with reversible transactions (not as safe) and is not mining compatible (hard to get miners to switch over).
Meanwhile, the SegWit Core group (Formerly referred to as Bitcoin Core before exclusively working on Segwit chain technology) continues to remain adamantly opposed to any sort of native capacity increase, and have vowed to keep SegWit1X alive, even though there’s no guarantee they will have enough miner support for the chain to survive.
Bitcoin Cash is the only Bitcoin
The successful hard fork of Bitcoin (BCC) proves that contrary to SegWit Core’s belief that forks are “dangerous,” network splits can be a viable way not only to resolve differences, but also to experiment with new features while also allowing various models to compete in the free market.
Case in point was the breakthrough made by Bitcoin Unlimited (BU) and nChain’s Gigablock Testnet Initiative. On Oct. 13, BU Chief Scientist Peter Rizun announced that the project has successfully mined and propagated the first ever 1GB block, proving that a massive on-chain scaling is possible. The test results are also proof that Bitcoin (BCC) is on the right path to become a worldwide peer-to-peer electronic cash system, able to compete directly with mainstream payment processors.
Cryptocurrency was created to solve the problems brought by traditional banking. For the online gambling industry, the appeal lies in its promise to cut out the middlemen, along with their outrageous fees, and help secure transactions with the distributed ledger system for decentralized transactions with massively lower fees.
Currently, cryptocurrency transactions come with a hefty price tag, partly because the Segwit1X network’s transaction capacity is still stuck at 1MB of data per block. This is the reason why Bitcoin (BCC) exists and is now forging ahead. The entire gambling industry needs to move across to the new chain, leaving nobody behind on Segwit branches as it inevitably loses relative to Bitcoin (BCC) in value due to the large transaction fees.
For more information about the reclassification of the nomenclature, read here.