Wladimir van der Laan, who leads Bitcoin Core's development work, expressed cautious support for the Bitcoin Roundtable Consensus agreement in an email exchange with MiningPool. The argument over sca
Wladimir van der Laan, who leads Bitcoin Core's development work, expressed cautious support for the Bitcoin Roundtable Consensus agreement in an email exchange with MiningPool. The argument over scaling has spilled into a broader fight about Bitcoin's governance structure. The fundamental question centers on timing: when should proposed changes go live? Laan sits at the critical juncture. He manages the Bitcoin Core code repository and possesses the technical authority to approve or reject changes.
The community could theoretically refuse to accept his modifications, but Laan controls the Bitcoin Core GitHub repository. He has maintained throughout that large changes, especially those involving a hard fork, should await sufficient community consensus. His predecessor, Gavin Andresen, disagreed with this approach. Andresen pressed Laan to adopt a more aggressive stance, even suggesting the lead developer should behave as a "benevolent dictator" and make decisions without extended deliberation. This disagreement led to the Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Classic split that dominates current discussion.
Before Bitcoin Core adopts any scaling solution, two conditions must be met. The proposal must be technically viable and effective. The community must believe those claims, otherwise implementation could splinter the network into factions. Meeting both requirements defines the task every scaling proposal faces. The Bitcoin Roundtable Consensus has assembled support across multiple constituencies. Miners controlling substantial hash power gave their backing. Contributors to Bitcoin Core lent their names. Exchanges and payment services joined. Not all relevant parties attended the Roundtable gathering, which accounts for some notable gaps in participation. None carries more weight than Laan's own absence.
His absence doesn't signal opposition. Laan appears to maintain his traditional stance: assess how the broader community reacts while avoiding attempts to shape that response. MiningPool put two plain questions to him. First, what does he make of the proposal from a technical perspective? Second, does the agreement command enough support for him to advance it?
His answer in summary: technically sound but politically uncertain. The suggested July 2017 implementation window appears to him far more realistic than activation dates from earlier proposals.
On technical merits: "From a technical perspective it is sound, and a reasonable step, not a 'leap of faith'. I don't expect the technical implementation to present any obstacles -so excluding logistic and political issues [of] whether a hardfork of bitcoin can be done at all, which I am not sure have been sufficiently answered, I'm all for it."
On the proposed timeline: "What is good is that the activation date is planned ahead more than a year, so if the change goes into the code soon, by – say – July [2016] everyone will most likely have updated their software at least once [so] the switch would go smoothly without anyone suddenly realizing they are on the wrong side of a fork, creating panic. Earlier hardfork proposals have activation dates on very short notice[,] which is unrealistic."
On whether the community backs it: "As for consensus, I think it must be seen how the overall reply to this is from the community. Thus far[,] it seems somewhat promising."
Bitcoin Classic supporters voice strong opposition. Some argue the changes don't go far enough. Others insist the schedule moves too slowly. Many have shifted their focus from blocksize to governance questions, and these participants show little appetite for backing anything bearing the Core label. That faction appears unlikely to budge.
The overall Bitcoin community's response to the Roundtable agreement reads as positive so far. Laan notes that assessing genuine consensus takes time. How people respond will shape his decision. He remains the final authority on whether Bitcoin Core adopts these changes.
