Bitcoin Forum
November 15, 2024, 11:24:13 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: [2015-10-05] Gavin Andresen: Bitcoin Core Won’t Make the Consensus Rules in the  (Read 601 times)
lemonte (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 624
Merit: 502


View Profile
October 05, 2015, 02:38:47 PM
 #1

"Although many bitcoiners see Bitcoin XT as nothing more than a BIP 101 enabled software client, the implications of Mike Hearn’s creation go much deeper than that. While the alternative implementation of the Bitcoin protocol has not been able to gain wide acceptance among the Bitcoin mining community, the fact that this new Bitcoin client exists could potentially shake-up the payment network’s governance model. In fact, this may have been part of Bitcoin Foundation Chief Scientist Gavin Andresen’s reasoning for joining the project in the first place."

http://coinjournal.net/gavin-andresen-bitcoin-core-wont-make-the-consensus-rules-in-the-future/

TraderTimm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408
Merit: 1121



View Profile
October 05, 2015, 05:08:31 PM
 #2

Bitcoin eXtra Tantrum has a 9% following, which isn't much of a consensus at all.

Why Gavin joined up with Hearn, I'll never really know. All I do know is that these two have caused more damage to Bitcoin in general with their "take my ball and fork the client" approach than any potential Bitcoin vulnerability has.

Why do we still give them a soapbox to foul the Bitcoin ecosystem?

fortitudinem multis - catenum regit omnia
odolvlobo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4508
Merit: 3417



View Profile
October 06, 2015, 12:01:49 AM
 #3

Andresen's point is that as long as Bitcoin Core defines the consensus rules, the few people that control Bitcoin Core control Bitcoin, but their status won't last forever.

The good news is that the oligarchy is already starting to crumble. There now are a few independent implementations of the consensus rules and their influence is growing.

Bitcoin XT wasn't the first alternative, so I don't feel that Andresen and Hearn can claim that they started the movement away from Bitcoin Core's control of the consensus rules, but they certainly have publicized the issue.

Join an anti-signature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns.
PGP Fingerprint: 6B6BC26599EC24EF7E29A405EAF050539D0B2925 Signing address: 13GAVJo8YaAuenj6keiEykwxWUZ7jMoSLt
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080



View Profile
October 06, 2015, 12:31:59 AM
 #4

Andresen's point is that as long as Bitcoin Core defines the consensus rules, the few people that control Bitcoin Core control Bitcoin, but their status won't last forever.

The good news is that the oligarchy is already starting to crumble. There now are a few independent implementations of the consensus rules and their influence is growing.

Bitcoin XT wasn't the first alternative, so I don't feel that Andresen and Hearn can claim that they started the movement away from Bitcoin Core's control of the consensus rules, but they certainly have publicized the issue.


Someone has to define the rules, and of course it won't be the same group of devs for ever (it's changed a few times since Satoshi already). But there can only be one set of rules to govern a concept called "consensus" (the hint's in the name...)

You seem to be arguing for competing sets of consensus rules. May I suggest that you re-acquaint yourself with the implications: very serious adverse consequences for the network. Disagreement between nodes on which chain is valid will cause unplanned blockchain forks, and competing consensus rule invites this explicitly. That will manifest in an experience for the user somewhere between inconsistency and serious confusion, and that will damage confidence (and the exchange rate).

Vires in numeris
odolvlobo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4508
Merit: 3417



View Profile
October 06, 2015, 01:01:06 AM
 #5

Andresen's point is that as long as Bitcoin Core defines the consensus rules, the few people that control Bitcoin Core control Bitcoin, but their status won't last forever.
The good news is that the oligarchy is already starting to crumble. There now are a few independent implementations of the consensus rules and their influence is growing.
Bitcoin XT wasn't the first alternative, so I don't feel that Andresen and Hearn can claim that they started the movement away from Bitcoin Core's control of the consensus rules, but they certainly have publicized the issue.

Someone has to define the rules, and of course it won't be the same group of devs for ever (it's changed a few times since Satoshi already). But there can only be one set of rules to govern a concept called "consensus" (the hint's in the name...)
You seem to be arguing for competing sets of consensus rules. May I suggest that you re-acquaint yourself with the implications: very serious adverse consequences for the network. Disagreement between nodes on which chain is valid will cause unplanned blockchain forks, and competing consensus rule invites this explicitly. That will manifest in an experience for the user somewhere between inconsistency and serious confusion, and that will damage confidence (and the exchange rate).

I am not arguing for competing rules. I am arguing for competing implementations of the rules.

Multiple implementations is better than one because one implementation means centralized control. Nobody can unilaterally change the rules or break the network. Also, keep in mind that when there is a change to the "one" implementation, the result is two implementations (which was the source of the fork in 2013).

I agree that a scenario with only two implementations is risky. Ideally, no implementation would have a majority so that if a change to one implementation is incompatible, only that implementation suffers. I think that four or more is sufficient.

Join an anti-signature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns.
PGP Fingerprint: 6B6BC26599EC24EF7E29A405EAF050539D0B2925 Signing address: 13GAVJo8YaAuenj6keiEykwxWUZ7jMoSLt
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080



View Profile
October 06, 2015, 06:57:21 AM
 #6

I am not arguing for competing rules. I am arguing for competing implementations of the rules.

In which case, divorce yourself from Gavin Andresen's claims; he is part of the XT/BIP101 contingent that is arguing for competing consensus rules. That's what he means when he says "Bitcoin Core Won’t Make the Consensus Rules in the Future"; he wants different sets of rules and also presumably the potential chaos and value collapse that could bring.

Vires in numeris
odolvlobo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4508
Merit: 3417



View Profile
October 06, 2015, 04:05:01 PM
 #7

I am not arguing for competing rules. I am arguing for competing implementations of the rules.

In which case, divorce yourself from Gavin Andresen's claims; he is part of the XT/BIP101 contingent that is arguing for competing consensus rules. That's what he means when he says "Bitcoin Core Won’t Make the Consensus Rules in the Future"; he wants different sets of rules and also presumably the potential chaos and value collapse that could bring.

I guess I was just arguing semantics, but I think you are missing the point. The point is that the rules should not (and eventually will not) be dictated by one person or group. Competition allows a super-majority to change the rules, whereas with the "one" implementation, only the group controlling Bitcoin Core can change the rules.

Bitcoin XT is a major step in that direction. It has been a treacherous step, but babies fall down when they learn to walk.

Join an anti-signature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns.
PGP Fingerprint: 6B6BC26599EC24EF7E29A405EAF050539D0B2925 Signing address: 13GAVJo8YaAuenj6keiEykwxWUZ7jMoSLt
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!