Executive Summary
Bitcoin is trading at $1,888 on May 18, 2017, after hitting an intraday high of $1,904—a level that would have seemed unthinkable just six months ago when the cryptocurrency languished below $1,000. The rally is being supercharged by a dramatic development in the scaling debate: Digital Currency Group founder Barry Silbert has secured commitments from miners representing 78.3% of Bitcoin’s total hashrate to support a compromise that includes immediate Segregated Witness activation and a 2MB block size increase within twelve months. Over 50 Bitcoin companies from approximately 20 countries have signed on to the agreement.
The convergence of technical progress on scaling and Bitcoin’s relentless price appreciation creates a moment of both optimism and uncertainty. The global cryptocurrency market cap has swelled to approximately $38 billion for Bitcoin alone, with the total crypto market approaching $75 billion.
The Numbers Unpacked
Bitcoin’s price trajectory in May 2017 tells the story of an asset entering a new phase of mainstream awareness. After opening the year at roughly $960, Bitcoin has nearly doubled in five months:
- January 1: ~$960
- April 1: ~$1,075
- May 1: ~$1,440
- May 10: ~$1,720
- May 17: $1,839
- May 18 intraday high: $1,904
The pace of appreciation has accelerated dramatically in the second week of May, with Bitcoin gaining over $300 in just eight days. Trading volume on major exchanges has surged, with the 24-hour volume on May 18 alone exceeding $894 million across all tracked exchanges.
Altcoins are also experiencing significant movement. Ethereum trades at approximately $91 with a market cap of $8.3 billion, making it the third-largest cryptocurrency behind Bitcoin and XRP. Ripple’s XRP has surged 48% over the past week to $0.22, while Litecoin holds steady at $28.89 following its own successful SegWit activation.
Historical Context
The scaling debate that has consumed the Bitcoin community for over two years reached an inflection point this week. Since the Hong Kong Agreement of February 2016—in which miners committed to activating SegWit in exchange for a future hard fork to increase the block size—progress has been stalled. Miners never fully honored their commitment to activate SegWit, and the Bitcoin community grew increasingly frustrated with rising transaction fees and network congestion.
The situation has become acute in May 2017. The Bitcoin mempool is overflowing, with an estimated $1 billion worth of transactions stuck in a confirmation backlog. Average transaction fees have exceeded 420 satoshis per byte, making small transactions economically impractical. Wallet provider Xapo has resorted to absorbing elevated miner fees on behalf of users, an unsustainable practice that highlights the urgency of scaling solutions.
Silbert’s proposal is essentially a reinvigoration of the Hong Kong framework: immediate SegWit activation followed by a commitment to implement a 2MB block size hard fork within twelve months. The critical difference is the public commitment of 78.3% of hashrate—a threshold that, if maintained, would be sufficient to activate SegWit through miner signaling (BIP 141 requires 95% signaling for lock-in, though alternative activation mechanisms exist).
Expert Consensus
The reaction to Silbert’s compromise proposal has been mixed across different factions of the Bitcoin community. Erik Voorhees, founder of Shapeshift, offered unequivocal support: “I cannot endorse this strongly enough.” The co-founders of Satoshi Labs and mining magnate Chandler Guo have also publicly aligned with the proposal.
However, prominent Bitcoin Core contributor Peter Todd expressed skepticism, suggesting that Silbert should instead focus on supporting a User-Activated Soft Fork (UASF)—a mechanism by which nodes rather than miners enforce protocol changes. Todd’s position reflects a broader concern among small-block advocates that miners have repeatedly failed to honor scaling commitments.
Big-block supporters have their own reservations. Some argue that immediate SegWit activation without ironclad guarantees of a subsequent 2MB hard fork simply repeats the broken promises of the Hong Kong Agreement. The confusion is compounded by uncertainty over whether Silbert’s plan mirrors the Hong Kong framework or incorporates Sergio Demian Lerner’s Segwit2MB proposal, which would implement both changes simultaneously.
Meanwhile, Adam Back, the cryptographer often cited as a potential Satoshi Nakamoto candidate, offered a measured response: “I believe they mean two scale steps, deploy current SegWit, then work towards a further scale improvement. Many options for how.”
Forward Outlook
The immediate question is whether Silbert’s compromise can translate stated miner support into actual code deployment. The history of Bitcoin scaling negotiations is littered with failed agreements, and the gap between a Twitter announcement and a protocol change remains vast. SegWit activation requires sustained signaling by miners over a 2,016-block period, and nothing in Silbert’s announcement suggests this process has formally begun.
The broader market context adds urgency. Bitcoin’s price surge has drawn unprecedented mainstream media attention, amplified by the WannaCry ransomware attack that began on May 12. The global cyberattack, which infected over 200,000 computers in 150 countries and disrupted operations at the UK’s National Health Service, demanded Bitcoin ransoms of $300-$600. While the attack generated only approximately $26,000 in Bitcoin payments, it introduced millions of people to the concept of cryptocurrency for the first time—and not always in a positive light.
For Bitcoin investors and users, the path forward hinges on three variables: whether the scaling compromise actually activates SegWit, whether the promised 2MB hard fork materializes, and whether Bitcoin’s price momentum can be sustained through what could be months of technical and political negotiations. The cryptocurrency market’s total capitalization approaching $75 billion suggests that investors are betting on a resolution—but the gap between optimism and execution has burned Bitcoin stakeholders before.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile, and past performance does not guarantee future results. Always conduct your own research before making investment decisions.
silbert got 78 percent hashrate across 50 companies and it STILL fell apart. governance was broken beyond repair back then
78% hashrate support and it still took forever to activate. shows you how broken governance was back then
the 2MB block size increase was the poison pill. core devs were never going to accept that and everyone knew it
the 2MB hard fork was dead before the ink dried. core devs never signed and everyone in that room knew it
2MB was always a nonstarter with core. segwit was the real prize and we got that eventually. the compromise was dead on arrival
segwit_when 78% hashrate and the agreement still fell apart because core devs refused the 2MB side. hashrate support meant nothing without dev buy in
hash_partisan exactly. 78% hashrate meant nothing without core dev buy in. miners learned they dont actually control the protocol
BTC at $1,888 with a $75B total market cap. we do that in daily volume on a slow dex now. crazy how the reference points shifted
78 percent hashrate and 50 companies and the agreement still collapsed. btc governance lesson number one: miners dont run the show
Silbert pulling this together across 50 companies in 20 countries was genuinely impressive. shame the NY agreement fell apart anyway
Raj K. 50 companies from 20 countries signing on was real coordination. shame the 2MB side killed it
silbert got 50 companies and 78% hashrate and it still fell apart. tells you how fractured the community was. the block size war broke people
block_wars the NY agreement was dead before the ink dried. core devs signed nothing and miners cant force a hard fork without them
silbert got 50 companies to sign and it still fell apart. tells you everything about governance in bitcoin. nobody is in charge
BTC at $1,888 when the total crypto market cap was $75B. we added a trillion in market cap since then and people still complain about $1,900 being a local top
Ingrid Holm $75B total market cap feels like a rounding error now. crazy how fast the space grew from there
78% hashrate support is a massive show of confidence in that scaling compromise.
50+ companies from 20 countries signed on – this could be a turning point for Bitcoin.
78% support is huge. This could finally end the scaling wars.
$1,900 seems low for a break, must be a typo or very old data
OldSchoolBTC its not a typo. BTC was literally $1,888 in May 2017. the article is a historical piece
$75B total crypto market cap back then. we do that in daily volume now on a slow day
BTC at $1,888 with $75B total market cap. current daily spot volume on Binance alone is more than that entire 2017 cap lol
78% hashrate signing on and core devs just said no. the NYA was a masterclass in misunderstanding how bitcoin governance actually works
Sigrun M. miners literally thought they controlled the protocol. took them until 2017 to learn they dont. expensive lesson for everyone involved
miners learned the hard way that signalling hashrate and actually forcing a protocol change are two very different things. expensive education