95% miner voting is a problem for some miners, who don’t
want to have veto power over such an important change.
The chances of extortion either against them (“vote the
way I want or I will DDoS you off the Internet”) or by
them (“If you want me to vote a certain way, pay up”)
are just too great.
Satoshi Roundtable Thoughts
71–80 of 116 posts
Re: Satoshi Roundtable Thoughts
#7295% miner voting is a problem for some miners, who don’t want to have veto power over such an important change. The chances of extortion either against them (“vote the way I want or I will DDoS you off the Internet”) or by them (“If you want me to vote a certain way, pay up”) are just too great. One of the interesting parts of Bitcoin is how it offloads, to a certain extent, the consensus guarantees into the economic…
What? That is exactly what it does not do! Bitcoin takes the politics and money out of consensus -- once you are running a full node you are validating the rules and the ruleset is unchanging. Being above politics is entirely the point.
Re: Satoshi Roundtable Thoughts
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The main Bitcoin forum on Reddit is censored heavy handed. No criticism allowed, mentions of alternative software or forums get deleted right away. This is simply not true. The only rule on the /r/bitcoin Reddit is not to promote these network fork attempts. This is not just alternative software, it is software that follows DIFFERENT rules from the main bitcoin software and would follow a different ledger history i…
> The people pushing the need to fork would bombard the Reddit forum for many months, very likely with sockpuppets. Or, maybe, a lot of people read the white paper, and took significant issue with command-and-control style Bitcoin development. Everything needed to understand the roots of the debate can be found here: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf > The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representa…
> Or, maybe, a lot of people read the white paper, and took significant issue with command-and-control style Bitcoin development.
Bitcoin development is anything but command and control. Please stop repeating nonsense.
Re: Satoshi Roundtable Thoughts
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The main Bitcoin forum on Reddit is censored heavy handed. No criticism allowed, mentions of alternative software or forums get deleted right away. This is simply not true. The only rule on the /r/bitcoin Reddit is not to promote these network fork attempts. This is not just alternative software, it is software that follows DIFFERENT rules from the main bitcoin software and would follow a different ledger history i…
> The people pushing the need to fork would bombard the Reddit forum for many months, very likely with sockpuppets. Or, maybe, a lot of people read the white paper, and took significant issue with command-and-control style Bitcoin development. Everything needed to understand the roots of the debate can be found here: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf > The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representa…
> Or, maybe, a lot of people read the white paper, and took significant issue with command-and-control style Bitcoin development.
Bitcoin development is anything but command and control. Please stop repeating nonsense.
Re: Satoshi Roundtable Thoughts
#75So this is #3 of the Satoshi Roundtable notes and opinions that have made it to HN, as far as I can tell (I was initially confused and thought this was a re-submission of Brian Armstrong's notes https://medium.com/@barmstrong/what-happened-at-the-satoshi-... ). As someone who has dabbled into the bitcoin and block chain area but never seriously, all of these reports and the constant reporting of the serious issues fa…
There is near complete consensus, see: https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-con... Nearly every developer, along with the vast majority of miners, have agreed to this. The group that did not agree (Coinbase, 2 developers, and some small miners) is extremely good at social media and has done a great job of spreading a false story of "serious scaling problems" and "developers can't reach consensus".…
rsi_oww is one of the few users posting facts and his comments are grey...
Re: Satoshi Roundtable Thoughts
#7695% miner voting is a problem for some miners, who don’t want to have veto power over such an important change. The chances of extortion either against them (“vote the way I want or I will DDoS you off the Internet”) or by them (“If you want me to vote a certain way, pay up”) are just too great. One of the interesting parts of Bitcoin is how it offloads, to a certain extent, the consensus guarantees into the economic…
What? That is exactly what it does not do! Bitcoin takes the politics and money out of consensus -- once you are running a full node you are validating the rules and the ruleset is unchanging. Being above politics is entirely the point.
The ruleset is certainly not unchangeable.
If enough miners and full nodes install a different bitcoin implementation, having combined more than 51% of the hash rate of the network, the ruleset of the new majority is valid.
That's how bitcoin reaches consensus and that's how Classic would activate (going for 75% and a grace period of a month, because otherwise you'd probably get chaos and the possibility of 2 distinct bitcoin networks).
Re: Satoshi Roundtable Thoughts
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? That is exactly what it does not do! Bitcoin takes the politics and money out of consensus -- once you are running a full node you are validating the rules and the ruleset is unchanging. Being above politics is entirely the point.
The ruleset is certainly not unchangeable. If enough miners and full nodes install a different bitcoin implementation, having combined more than 51% of the hash rate of the network, the ruleset of the new majority is valid. That's how bitcoin reaches consensus and that's how Classic would activate (going for 75% and a grace period of a month, because otherwise you'd probably get chaos and the possibility of 2 distinc…
> If enough miners and full nodes install a different bitcoin implementation, having combined more than 51% of the hash rate of the network, the ruleset of the new majority is valid.
No, that is a misunderstanding of how bitcoin works. If the miners activate a new ruleset, and if that change is not so very carefully constructed as to make the old rules a special case of the new rules (a soft-fork), then those miners fork themselves off the network no one automatically follows. The amount of hashpower on the fork has zero relevance to the validity of the blocks they are mining, from the perspective of an un-upgraded node.
Re: Satoshi Roundtable Thoughts
#78So far as I can tell as a complete outsider...
Bitcoin developers and the bitcoin community (i.e. people trying to make bitcoin much larger) are not finding shared solutions for the future of the network.
It's impossible to know (from the outside) who is right, but both sides are very very sure that they are in the right!
Time to fork it and move on I think.
Re: Satoshi Roundtable Thoughts
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is near complete consensus, see: https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-con... Nearly every developer, along with the vast majority of miners, have agreed to this. The group that did not agree (Coinbase, 2 developers, and some small miners) is extremely good at social media and has done a great job of spreading a false story of "serious scaling problems" and "developers can't reach consensus".…
> They want to take over the bitcoin network with a fork, which will follow different rules A simple and clear understanding of which group is trying to distort Bitcoin from its mission can be had by simply reading this informative white paper: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf I would encourage everyone following this discussion to start by reading the foundation document, and then comparing the design and goals of th…
Thanks for this. For those of us not following closely, that paper explains the issue clearly.
From my reading, the protocol is supposed to adjust the difficulty of the block chain proof of work to provide a certain number of blocks per hour?
Re: Satoshi Roundtable Thoughts
#80So this is #3 of the Satoshi Roundtable notes and opinions that have made it to HN, as far as I can tell (I was initially confused and thought this was a re-submission of Brian Armstrong's notes https://medium.com/@barmstrong/what-happened-at-the-satoshi-... ). As someone who has dabbled into the bitcoin and block chain area but never seriously, all of these reports and the constant reporting of the serious issues fa…
There is near complete consensus, see: https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-con... Nearly every developer, along with the vast majority of miners, have agreed to this. The group that did not agree (Coinbase, 2 developers, and some small miners) is extremely good at social media and has done a great job of spreading a false story of "serious scaling problems" and "developers can't reach consensus".…
This is false. There is not "near consensus". There was heavy pressure at the event to reach some conclusion -- some who agreed have since expressed other viewpoints. A number of miners who signed that document went on to experiment with Classic (the alternative client). Also, that group wasn't fully representive.
Looking at users, the majority are very unhappy with how Core has operated over the past year.
Additionally, running Classic isn't "taking over the network", it is a way to get a change into the protocol without Core's approval. The next software upgrade after that could very easily come from Core. Of course, it also sends a strong message that Core needs to listen to others more, and that can't unilaterally mold Bitcoin to their own personal vision.