CHIP-2025-03 Faster Blocks: gathering statements of support (and dissent)

Consensus
#1

We’ve spent a year here working through this CHIP: orphan rates, SPV/header growth, parking/finalization, the “will it still be Bitcoin?” question, and the long tail of activation risk. The spec is now in a state where I’m confident putting it before stakeholders and targeting the '27 window, and I’d like to start collecting public statements the same way we did for the adaptive blocksize CHIP.

The upgrade window is Nov 15, 2026 (lock-in) / May 15, 2027 (activation). That’s roughly two months out, which is tight but still achievable if support starts being visible now.

Implementation work in BCHN (currently in Calin’s WIP branch) started a little late (July) but is near done, pending locktime implementation, parking nits, and adapting all the tests.

What we can do in the meantime is show support publicly, so it can cascade as it did with past successful CHIPs. Time to move social consensus from opaque (“I want this, but nobody knows it, and I don’t know if others want it, too.”) to public (“I want everyone to know I want this so everyone knows that everyone knows that everyone wants this”).

What I’m asking for is simple: a sentence or short paragraph, in your own words, saying what you think. Support, neutral, or opposition — all are worth recording, and a statement with reasoning is worth far more than a bare vote. If you’re a developer, a project operator, a wallet maintainer, a miner, or just a user who’s been following along, your statement counts.

I’ll be sending the usual structured “formal” requests separately, unless someone prefers to give their statement here ahead of time.

If you’re supportive, it helps to say which benefit actually matters to you — a one-line “I endorse this” is fine, but “I run X and this fixes Y for me” is the kind of statement that carries more weight.

How to respond: just reply with something like:

Approve / Neutral / Disapprove
Name or project:
Statement:

Where the substance lives:

And since these have been the recurring questions all year, here’s where each is answered:

Dissenting statements are welcome too: I’d rather log a real objection with its reasoning than pretend it doesn’t exist. The only thing I’ll ask, same as ever, is that objections engage with what’s actually in the document, not a hypothetical version of it.

I’ll collect replies here into the stakeholders.md table as they come in.

#2

PS @BitcoinCashPodcast already kicked it off with consensus.cash where we already have meaningful supportive statements by some well known people.

image
image921×576 41.6 KB

1 Like
#3

Approve!

Name or project: The BCH Podcast, BCH Bullet. I will also enquire about Selene & BLISS, but can’t speak for those unilaterally. ConsensusCash has to stay neutral (as a consensus oracle).

Statement: 1 minute blocks is an essential upgrade for BCH. Many users, including myself, constantly suffer a pain point around confirmation requiring services with unexpected & barely tolerable waiting times, need to follow up with services where confirmations don’t arrive in the window they monitor for a transaction and more. Without it, we are well behind the industry standard. 1 minute blocks is a good technical improvement, a good user improvement & it once again emphasizes BCH as committed to making the best money - the best & most usable cryptocurrency - possible.

I will write up a more indepth blog post & approval statement with my reasoning soon.

1 Like
#4

Disapprove (for now). Rationale:

  • code is not ready and likely to have new and exciting bugs. We can throw AI at it to catch any potential bugs but that has risks too ai is not perfect — moreover bchn has been busy with other assorted tasks.
  • it feels fundamentally wrong to take a chain with like ~200 txns per block and .025% hash divide it by 10x — ~20tx per block and far less secure blocks at 0.0025% hash. Hmm.