Bitcoin Consensus – Why We Must Know the Answer Before Asking the Question

[weex]

Bitcoin Consensus – Why We Must Know the Answer Before Asking the Question

http://davidsterry.com/blog/2015/06/bitcoin-consensus-why-we-must-know-the-answer-before-asking-the-question/

[Hazir]

Honestly, sometimes I would rather have bitcoin managed by centralized agency. Decentralisation has its advantages but advocating any changes is a pain in the ass.
A lot of Arguments in the Bitcoin Block Size Debate are being repeated all over again and I feel it is never ending discussion...

[melody82]

The author, like most people, is confused about the issue.  He says we risk splitting into two with the hard fork.  This is utter nonsense, the fork will not happen without 90% consensus.  The remaining 10% will then be forced to join or be worthless.  If that consensus does not happen, then there is no hard fork.  No point in reading the rest of the article, as the author clearly has no idea what he is talking about.

[weex]

The author, like most people, is confused about the issue.  He says we risk splitting into two with the hard fork.  This is utter nonsense, the fork will not happen without 90% consensus.  The remaining 10% will then be forced to join or be worthless.  If that consensus does not happen, then there is no hard fork.  No point in reading the rest of the article, as the author clearly has no idea what he is talking about.

Author here. I didn't realize 90% was the blessed threshold for a decision. Is this going off of "how it's usually done" or is that what's going into XT?

[Amph]

Honestly, sometimes I would rather have bitcoin managed by centralized agency. Decentralisation has its advantages but advocating any changes is a pain in the ass.
A lot of Arguments in the Bitcoin Block Size Debate are being repeated all over again and I feel it is never ending discussion...

at least in a decentralized ecosystem your vote does matter a bit, with a centralized system you don't count nothing, someone else will always decide for you, no matter the downsides, i'll always prefer the former

The author, like most people, is confused about the issue.  He says we risk splitting into two with the hard fork.  This is utter nonsense, the fork will not happen without 90% consensus.  The remaining 10% will then be forced to join or be worthless.  If that consensus does not happen, then there is no hard fork.  No point in reading the rest of the article, as the author clearly has no idea what he is talking about.

Author here. I didn't realize 90% was the blessed threshold for a decision. Is this going off of "how it's usually done" or is that what's going into XT?

it has always worked in that way, and has nothing to do with xt

[tvbcof]

For those who are not ancient here and may not know, ~weex was the guy who started and ran what was arguably the first exchange in the U.S.  It seemed to me like it was a one-man show.

He eventually shut the exchange down.  I don't think that he ever said why exactly, but I strongly suspected that he came under pressure to do things to his customers that he felt were not in keeping with the spirit and promise of Bitcoin.  I also suspected that he may not have had full lattitude to discuss all of the ins and outs.

When the exchange was shut down no money that I am aware of was appropriated, and I don't even recall any complaints from former customers.  This was one of the very few times in the history of Bitcoin when such an event occurred.

[spazzdla]

Honestly, sometimes I would rather have bitcoin managed by centralized agency. Decentralisation has its advantages but advocating any changes is a pain in the ass.
A lot of Arguments in the Bitcoin Block Size Debate are being repeated all over again and I feel it is never ending discussion...

That is kind of the idea..  Some 15 dudes can't change it to benifit them greatly, we'd all say how about you go get fucked.

[unamis76]

The author, like most people, is confused about the issue.  He says we risk splitting into two with the hard fork.  This is utter nonsense, the fork will not happen without 90% consensus.  The remaining 10% will then be forced to join or be worthless.  If that consensus does not happen, then there is no hard fork.  No point in reading the rest of the article, as the author clearly has no idea what he is talking about.

The authors idea still stands: if we split on "votes" and don't reach 90%, we will get zilch. Bitcoin will be compromised in the long run.

[odolvlobo]

The author, like most people, is confused about the issue.  He says we risk splitting into two with the hard fork.  This is utter nonsense, the fork will not happen without 90% consensus.  The remaining 10% will then be forced to join or be worthless.

The author's analysis is reasonable. I don't know where you get "90%".

Keep in mind that there are two "forks" here:

One is the fork in the software (implementing a max size of 1 MB or 20 MB). A hard fork is one in which the two versions are not interoperable. This change is a hard fork because the 20 MB version accepts blocks that the current protocol rejects.

The other is a fork in the block chain. The block chain is really a block tree where only one branch persists for any significant amount of time.

The result of a hard fork in which both protocols persist is a persistent fork in the block chain. It doesn't matter how many people use one side or the other. It can be 50/50, 90/10, or 99.99/0.01. As long as both sides are used, the fork is persistent.

Normally, one side of a hard fork quickly gains adoptance and the other side must conform or become obsolete. The author is claiming that if a significant percentages continue on both sides then the confusion and problems will break the faith in the system, and people will abandon Bitcoin.

[weex]

For those who are not ancient here and may not know, ~weex was the guy who started and ran what was arguably the first exchange in the U.S.  It seemed to me like it was a one-man show.

He eventually shut the exchange down.  I don't think that he ever said why exactly, but I strongly suspected that he came under pressure to do things to his customers that he felt were not in keeping with the spirit and promise of Bitcoin.  I also suspected that he may not have had full lattitude to discuss all of the ins and outs.

When the exchange was shut down no money that I am aware of was appropriated, and I don't even recall any complaints from former customers.  This was one of the very few times in the history of Bitcoin when such an event occurred.

Not to go OT, but it's heartwarming to know that my honesty was appreciated. As for why it closed it was simply that I couldn't maintain a bank account without some astronomical licensing cost, and that I had little idea how to go about VC funding at that time to cover it. Now it's much better understood that US Bitcoin businesses need a full AML and MSB licensing strategy and budget.

Back to the issue at hand, I thought the p2sh change was a hard fork but that was actually a soft fork and I don't know off hand when there was a hard fork before. People should know that a hard fork means anyone who hasn't upgraded is forked...it's not a matter of percentage. Anything significantly less than 100% where the minority doesn't immediately upgrade would be catastrophic.

[Amph]

The author, like most people, is confused about the issue.  He says we risk splitting into two with the hard fork.  This is utter nonsense, the fork will not happen without 90% consensus.  The remaining 10% will then be forced to join or be worthless.

The author's analysis is reasonable. I don't know where you get "90%".

Keep in mind that there are two "forks" here:

One is the fork in the software (implementing a max size of 1 MB or 20 MB). A hard fork is one in which the two versions are not interoperable. This change is a hard fork because the 20 MB version accepts blocks that the current protocol rejects.

The other is a fork in the block chain. The block chain is really a block tree where only one branch persists for any significant amount of time.

The result of a hard fork in which both protocols persist is a persistent fork in the block chain. It doesn't matter how many people use one side or the other. It can be 50/50, 90/10, or 99.99/0.01. As long as both sides are used, the fork is persistent.

Normally, one side of a hard fork quickly gains adoptance and the other side must conform or become obsolete. The author is claiming that if a significant percentages continue on both sides then the confusion and problems will break the faith in the system, and people will abandon Bitcoin.

yes it is persistent but it will be orphaned so the coins created with it, would be useless, otherwise what would be the point of network consensus?

from what i've understood there will not be two legit fork, one will be obsolete and the other will remain operative, this in the case the % is more than 50 for one

[LiteCoinGuy]

The author, like most people, is confused about the issue.  He says we risk splitting into two with the hard fork.  This is utter nonsense, the fork will not happen without 90% consensus.  The remaining 10% will then be forced to join or be worthless.  If that consensus does not happen, then there is no hard fork.  No point in reading the rest of the article, as the author clearly has no idea what he is talking about.

exactly. the author spreads FUD or is just a moron.


95% of all (important) people are pro fork.

there will be no 2 chains.

not the end of btc.


fork it.

[odolvlobo]

yes it is persistent but it will be orphaned so the coins created with it, would be useless, otherwise what would be the point of network consensus?
from what i've understood there will not be two legit fork, one will be obsolete and the other will remain operative, this in the case the % is more than 50 for one

The legitimacy of a chain is determined by the miners and nodes. If one portion accepts 20 MB blocks and the other portion does not, then there will be a persistent fork. Both branches will persist because each group considers its branch to be the longest valid chain and the other group's branch to be either orphaned or invalid.

[achow101]

The legitimacy of a chain is determined by the miners and nodes. If one portion accepts 20 MB blocks and the other portion does not, then there will be a persistent fork. Both branches will persist because each group considers its branch to be the longest valid chain and the other group's branch to be either orphaned or invalid.

It is possible that both branches persist, but unlikely because the fork only occurs when >90% or > 95% of nodes and blocks follow the new rules. Once that happens, the old chain is no longer secure due to decreased hash rate and very few people would be using it. Most exchanges would either switch chains or stop exchanging Bitcoin. Essentially, the old chain would no longer be of any value.

[Harry Hood]

The challenge is that consensus is fair but slow, and when decision making is slow or stalled waiting for consensus to be obtained individuals (with knowledge and power) can move forward independently. We see Gavin making moves and going forward, regardless of who may follow, and that might be the right direction but it's dangerous when it happens without the support of the community.

It'll always be a challenge. It someways it's the curse of Satoshi remaining anonymous. If he/she were out there, he/she would be seen as the foremost authority on the project and direction of future decisions.

This article identifies the issue really well, thanks for posting it.

[Westin Landon Cox]

I'm fine with 20MB, or some compromise, but I'm not convinced this 90% threshold figure is definite. Mike Hearn didn't talk about a 90% threshold in his recent interview. I'll try to track down the relevant quotes, unless somebody beats me to it.

[odolvlobo]

I'm fine with 20MB, or some compromise, but I'm not convinced this 90% threshold figure is definite. Mike Hearn didn't talk about a 90% threshold in his recent interview. I'll try to track down the relevant quotes, unless somebody beats me to it.

Anyone can set their limit to 20 MB. Nobody needs permission from Mike Hearn or anyone else.

[Westin Landon Cox]

I found the part of the interview. It's worse than I remembered. Here's a sample quote from Mike Hearn.

The worst case scenario is the majority ... the economic majority  ... is in favor but the hash power, the mining majority is not. That would be a very messy situation for bitcoin.

He goes on to talk about how if the hashing power in China is against switching to 20MB, they can introduce checkpoints into BitcoinXT to ignore the 1MB chain. I'll cut out the relevant part of the interview and make a separate post.

[weex]

Crypdonuts - Metaphorical Donut Shop After an Unsuccessful Fork

[R2D221]

Crypdonuts - Metaphorical Donut Shop After an Unsuccessful Fork

Your image is wrong. If the fork is unsuccessful, then BTC1 would be the only one available.