Bitcoin Cash Backers Suggest The Introduction Of A New BCH Governance Model
BCH Members Proposes the Introduction of a New Governance Model
Last week, a member of the Bitcoin Cash Community posted on the BTC Reddit channel about the possibility of introducing a new governance system in the coin’s (BCH) mechanism. The post was titled ‘Bitcoin Cash Governance Model Improvements’ and recommended several adjustments that will facilitate the seamless implementation of new features and upgrades on the Bitcoin Cash network. The post was published by a user known as BTC_StKN.
The post begins by mentioning that the introduction of the new model is being inhibited by the BCH community’s opposing stance towards miner voting. Previously, an attempt to implement the SegWit2x governance model proposal on the Bitcoin network through miner voting was hugely unsuccessful. The failure of this endeavor is attributed to the withdrawal of support by the F2Pool mining pool.
Concerning the aforementioned SegWit2x incident, the Reddit user stated that the BCH community is not confident in the voter mining governance system because of the epic failure in the past. Moreover, a majority of the community members feel that voter mining before the hard fork contradicts the real intentions of the miners. Precisely, BTC_StKN said that most individuals feel that Hashrate is the sole governance mechanism. However, the disadvantage of hashrates is their contentiousness/ as a result, the user proposed the ditching of this recurrent problem through the introduction of a new governance model.
Additionally, the post also mentioned that the success of very Bitcoin fork is determined by the users through the coin’s value in an open marketplace. For this reason, BTC_StKN believes that price and hashrates are closely related to each other. Hence, the user indicated that the network can attain its fall even if miners have more than a half of the network’s hashrates, especially if the users and the market value are not compliant.
Lastly, BTC_StKN concluded by recommending the implementation of a fresh governance model for the Bitcoin Cash network. In this regard, he issued several suggestions, including the introduction of Coin Holder voting. Apparently, this mechanism cannot be falsified and is the closest pre-fork indicator of the community’s support for market valuation. A similar proposal was made by Haipo Yang, the CEO of CoinEx, earlier in September. As per Yang, the Bitcoin Cash community should form an organization. Yang also suggested the deployment of the Bitcoin Cash Improvement protocol, a system that would allow members to make proposals to improve the BCH network.
CTOR or TTOR?
Besides the introduction of a new governance model, another change that has been previously recommended for the BCH network is the Canonical Transaction Ordering proposal (CTOR). The function of the proposal would be to modify the ordering of transactions within blocks on the Bitcoin Cash network. After the evaluation of the CTOR proposal by the nChain team, it has deemed unsatisfactory for implementation on the BCH network. Reportedly, CTOR did not demonstrate its applicability to the BCH network.
According to the nChain report, the Bitcoin Cash network currently employs a Topological Transaction Ordering (TTOR) mechanism which provides a loose form of partial ordering. The CTOR proposal seeks to rework the ordering of transactions within blocks, prioritizing Coinbase transactions followed by others arranged in an alphabetical order with respect to the transaction ID. The report also stated that CTOR claims to have multiple merits over TTOR.
Nonetheless, the implementation of CTOR is highly unlikely due to the heavy opposition it faces from members of the Bitcoin Cash community. For a substantial period, NCH users have been debating on CTOR, with the main subjects under contention being sharding and scalability. Tom Zander, the founder of Flowee the Hub, is against the deployment of CTOR as a prerequisite of sharding because sharding can be attained without altering the consensus rules. Similarly, Andrew Stone, a leading Bitcoin developer, said that CTOR’s sharding proposal does not require CTOR and does not improve scalability, thereby rendering CTOR an unnecessary addition to the BCH network.
The objective of scaling is to improve a network's ability to handle voluminous transactions. As of now, the CTOR proposal is yet to prove that it can optimize the utilization of computing resources, and it does not exhibit clear scaling benefits as well. Also, the authors of the CTOR proposal have not availed any test parameters or instrumentation data that compares the node strategies for both CTOR and TTOR. Moreover, there is no solid proof that scalability of the BCH network can only be realized after the alteration of the consensus.
In summary, while some of the goals mentioned in the CTOR proposal are commendable, they do not necessarily require the implementation of the proposal to be actualized. Besides, the deployment of the CTOR proposal is risky for the BCH network because it involves a change of consensus without any guaranteed advantage. For these reasons, nChain opposes the implementation of the CTOR proposal.