Early Bitcoin Supporter ‘Cobra’ Says BTC Does Not Need More Forks Regarding Block Size Reduction

Bitcoin has a controversial history with hard forks. Anyone who follows crypto news for a while knows about all the problems created when Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash decided to split and last November we all saw the drama that happened when Bitcoin Cash split with Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (SV).

Now, someone has decided that enough is enough. The co-founder of Bitcoin.org and Bitcointalk.org, named Cobra, has affirmed on Twitter that the community simply do not need more forks.

Stop this madness! Last thing Bitcoin needs is yet more contentious forks in this key year for adoption! A soft fork to “reduce the block size” is a hard fork in all but name. This will split off from the established consensus, cause massive drama, and damage trust in Bitcoin. https://t.co/54tzz4UIli

— Cøbra (@CobraBitcoin) February 11, 2019

This is, according to him, an important key for adoption and reducing the block size is basically just another fork that will cause massive drama and damage trust for the Bitcoin community.

Smaller Block Size Or No More Forks?

In fact, most of the Bitcoin in-fights happen because the community simply is not able to agree on block size, an important aspect of Bitcoin. Cobra was responding to a tweet from John Carvalho, also known as BitcoinErrorLog in the community.

Carvalho’s argument was that he would be more confident to use the Lightning Network if block sizes were smaller. This has angered Cobra, though, who affirmed that any block size change would split the community and be “contentious”, which could damage the image of Bitcoin in such an important year like 2019.

This is right. Bitcoin Cash is not better after the fork and has lost some interest from the community. Institutional investors are closer to the industry now, too, so this is a dangerous time to make dangerous decisions.

According to Cobra, there is no “soft fork”, this would be an actual hard fork that would divide the community as this is what happened every single time that someone tried to change the block size. Because of this, he is not very positive on this idea at all.

The Bitcoin Cash Drama

In case you are not familiar with the situation that was described before, the Bitcoin Cash network was created in August 2017 because users wanted to increase the block size. The community was very split on this as some believed that Satoshi meant for Bitcoin to stay as it was and others argued that he actually wanted the token to be more like Bitcoin Cash.

The fork did happen and BCH was actually somewhat successful for a whole year. The coin ranked well in the market cap and was considered a promising alternative to Bitcoin, but more in-fighting happened and another fork.

At one side stood Bitcoin ABC, spearheaded by Bitmain, and at the other, Bitcoin SV, spearheaded by nChain’s Craig Wright, which affirmed that he was the real Satoshi Nakamoto back then, which prompted some people to address him as “Faketoshi”. The whole drama was horrible and both tokens lost a lot of their market share.

Bitcoin also had some not very successful forks like Bitcoin Gold, which is considered a failure by the community.

People Reacted To Cobra

Despite all the issues that hard forks have caused to the network, some people on Twitter were very excited by the idea. A user called @MSkiller said that they should do the fork and @pepoliopo agreed with him, as well as several others.

@Wecx, for instance, affirmed that smaller block sizes could help the Lightning Network to get off the ground while @indvs3 called it a “valid idea” that should be tested.

However, some people like @bourbonni agreed that it was not a great idea to “go down that path again”. Others, like @BryantHamstra, affirmed that they should let the fork happen as the new modified token would die and be insignificant anyway.

Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), XRP (Ripple), and BCH Price Analysis Watch (Feb 12th)

fbq(‘init’, ‘221121771715296’); // Insert your pixel ID here.
fbq(‘track’, ‘PageView’);

Article Source…