Hacker News Reader

Comment by gfody | Hacker News Reader

it's a fork, the code is here: https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc

the original client is here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

While bitcoin abc is the main bitcoin cash implementation for now, the plan is to have multiple "independent development teams" for BCC [https://www.bitcoincash.org/].

It is true that BCC will be a continuation of the original chain, and it is also true that in some substantial sense bitcoin cash can be said to be a continuation of the original bitcoin blockchain and incentive model to a greater degree than bitcoin core will soon be, as bitcoin core moves over to segregated witness with a "block weight cap" rather than "block size cap".

I therefore rate MichaelBurge's sentence "BCC is not actually a fork but is the original chain/software, isn't it?" as false (it is a fork), true (it is a continuation of the original chain), and true (it is a continuation of the original software).

I suppose there's actually 3 forks in scope: The Segwit chain that Coinbase is supporting, the big-blocks ABC chain that they are denouncing, and the original chain that nobody seems to want. And I think I heard rumors of a Segwit + 2MB blocks fork?

Or are the Segwit chains completely irrelevant here?

the third fork is https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin which combines segwit and large blocks, afaik they all support segwit - they just differ in how they reach consensus. I don't think anyone is pushing for no change since transaction fees and latency what they are it's pretty clear something has to change.

> I suppose there's actually 3 forks in scope:

No, segwit is an optional backwards compatible protocol extension that people can choose to use... not a fork. You can bridge an original bitcoin node onto the network using segwit and modulo segwit unrelated software bugs that just make it get stuck, it will reach consensus with the network fine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com