F2Pool Co-founder Wang Chun: BTC protocol upgrade should not be pushed through like a "bundled bill"; only repeated transactions are worth fixing

MeNews · 2026-04-06T21:11:48+00:00

ME News reports that on April 4th (UTC+8), F2Pool co-founder Wang Chun posted on the X platform, explicitly opposing the protocol upgrades for Bitcoin BIP-110 and BIP-54. His main reason is to oppose forced advancement similar to the "bundling legislation" style pushed by American politicians. He pointed out that most of the issues currently discussed are not actually urgent: time warp attacks do not yield substantial benefits for miners; block verification efficiency has been significantly improved through libraries and hardware; forging confirmed transactions would require cracking SHA256, which, if achieved, would compromise the underlying security of BTC. Wang Chun believes these issues are insufficient to justify protocol modifications; only "replay transactions" have repair value and are among the few changes worth implementing.

MeNews

2026-04-06 21:11:48

ME News update: On April 4 (UTC+8), F2Pool co-founder Wang Chun posted on the X platform, clearly opposing the Bitcoin BIP-110 and BIP-54 protocol upgrade. The core reason is opposing a forced push similar to an American politician’s “bundling bill.” He noted that most of the issues being discussed currently have no real urgency: time-warp attacks provide miners with no tangible benefits; block validation efficiency has already been greatly improved through libraries and hardware; forging confirmed transactions would require cracking SHA256—if that were possible, then the security of the BTC underlying layer would already be compromised. Wang Chun believes none of these issues is sufficient to drive protocol changes; only “replay transactions” has repair value, and it is one of the few changes worth implementing. (Source: PANews)

BTC-0.23%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.