^Not sure what you're saying here. You don't believe there are scenarios in which interests of >51% of hashpower are at odds with those of the hodlers?
I suppose that is what I think yes. It might be more accurate to say that I do not think that the majority of the hashpower will go against the economic majority. I think that the game theory of Bitcoin is designed in such a way, that it ensures the continued decentralization and freedom of the protocol. In the case of a fifty one percent attack, I think the miners are definitely disincentivized to carry out such an attack, it would be irrational while requiring collective effort from separate entities, this I think is very unlikely, especially also considering the lessons learned over the past few years. Of course we could dream up of scenarios where this could happen, however it is very unlikely. Like many things in Bitcoin it is more about having a high probability of certainty as opposed to actually having absolute certainty. This works well enough, just like zero confirmation does in most retail situations.
This 'economic majority' would affect the miners only in the long run.
The economic majority effects the price of Bitcoin, the price of Bitcoin directly influences the income of the miners, both in the short term and the long term. Furthermore keep in mind that mining is also a long term investment which is not liquid. Therefore miners are effected both in the short and long run, since the price can move slow and fast and respond to situations very quickly.
In the short run, the majority of the miners could choose to stick with the 'wrong' Bitcoin fork.
I find this to be a strange statement, there is no "wrong" fork. Even if the miners did stick with a fork that over time would cease to be the dominant chain in terms of value, miners could simply switch back to the more valuable chain under such a scenario. This also allows the market to choose and test these concepts in the real world.
Another flaw in this concept is that it assumes there shall be only one Bitcoin, which can be changed with hardforks all the time, as long as people accept it.
I do not assume that there will only be one Bitcoin actually. I think over the long run Bitcoin splitting is unavoidable and off political necessity.
But if something like 60% of people accept Bitcoin A (original, pre-fork) and 40% of people accept Bitcoin B (forked), then there will be 2 'economic majorities', and both sides would survive.
Under such a scenario there would not be two economic majorities since the currency would have split. Holders would intersect across both chains obviously however the governance of each chain would be distinct and separate.
But because of the sudden fork and the lack of knowledge from average Joe, this could create widespread chaos, and both sides of the fork would lose value rapidly.
So you are saying that: Increasing the blocksize to two megabyte will create chaos! Your Bitcoins will lose their value rapidly! Paraphrasing you here to make a point. I think that you are fear mongering, if you are not doing this on purpose then I might suggest that you are scared of this situation. Fear is a strong emotion, it is one of the strongest emotions that is capable of overriding peoples reasoning. This is especially true with something like Bitcoin, where there is peoples wealth at stake.
First of all this upcoming fork to two megabytes will most likely have the support of more then ninety percent of the hashpower. Furthermore most of the major companies and wallets are also in support of this change. Therefore it will not be confusing at all to average Joe, since it will be clear to him at least, who is in the majority, since average Joe does not run a full node, his wallet provider will take care of that side of things.
* Average Joe A wants to perform some tero financing for his friend TeroDrone B. Both barely know what a wallet is. Joe A has a wallet working with Bitcoin A while TeroDrone B has a wallet working with Bitcoin B. The transaction would not work as expected, both would be severly disappointed. Bitcoin is no good.
* Average Joe B wants to buy a frapuccino from some local merchant. Joe B uses a Bitcoin B wallet. Unfortunately, the merchant was too noob to upgrade the wallet, and still accepts Bitcoin A. No frapuccino for Joe B or no payment for the merchant. Bitcoin is no good.
If the smaller chain survives then it will be like other altcoins, in the sense that Bitcoin is not more difficult to use because of the existence of Litecoin for example. Its not like the existence of Litecoin addresses breaks Bitcoin?
The example you give here will not occur in the situation we are in now, I suspect it will only be the diehards in terms of this small blockist philosophy that will stay behind on the old chain. People that are capable of running full nodes, will at least be smart enough to know the difference between two separate cryptocurrencies. Credit where credit is due, the small blockist camp do tend to be very technically inclined, if you do not mind me generalizing in a more positive sense about my ideological opponents here.
This bring me back to another point however, lets say hypothetically if we did have a 40/60 split. I presume you would think that either the 40% or the 60% should be "forced" to live under any rule changes or lack of changes that they disagree with or leave? This is a lot like a government that rules by force using the majority as a justification for its tyranny, or even worse a minority. If people where truly so divided in their vision of Bitcoin then a split is the best solution and justified, it solves the problem of tyranny of the majority. If you do not think we should be able to split what do you suggest we do instead under this hypothetical scenario? I can not imagine a solution that is as graceful as the one that is inherent within the Bitcoin protocol. Even if you can think of a better alternative to splitting, which I can not imagine being the case under the hypothetical scenario I describe, since it is the ability to split that best preserves the principles of freedom and self determination. Whatever you do think it does not change the reality that Bitcoin can split, whether you like it or not, you should embrace this concept, or question your involvement in Bitcoin.
But people like Veritas disregard this scenario. They will fork without widespread consensus. They think they know the will of the 'economic majority'.
Well this is a complete straw man argument, I have never said this. In fact I have clearly stated the opposite, we intend to fork with a high degree of consensus and I do not know the will of the majority. However collectively the network can know the will of the economic majority through proof of work and market dynamics, emergent consensus can form, this is the new dawn of decentralized governance.
I also think there is no governance mechanism for Bitcoin and there shouldn't be one, same as for gold.
I do think that you are wrong on this point. The rules of gold can not be changed, the rules of Bitcoin can be changed, this is one of the reasons why Bitcoin is better then gold. Since Bitcoin does represent a community of people that follow certain common rules, any change to these rules or even just continuing to uphold these rules requires a form of governance. This is a human necessity that can not be escaped, even anarchism requires forms of governance. Fortunately Bitcoin already has a governance mechanism build into the protocol.
I do think that you are wrong at this point. The rules of gold can not be changed, the rules of Bitcoin can be changed, this is one of the reasons why Bitcoin is worse than gold. This is why Bitcoin will eventually fail. At some point, these attempts to 'govern' Bitcoin, using populism, will produce hard forks (altcoins) strong enough to be considered Bitcoin.
I see, so you think Bitcoin will fail. So you are a Bitcoin skeptic then, not a believer like myself then I suppose. I can respect that. It is good that you say this it makes much of your other argumentation consistent. We need more real Bitcoin skeptics that actually have a decent understanding of Bitcoin. I am curous about your involvement in this debate and what motivates you to do this since you are not a true believer so to speak, however your motivations are irrelevant. What matters is the contents of our arguments. I suppose this blocksize issue definitely does highlight your critique of Bitcoin very well actually. For me this certainly is a existential struggle within Bitcoin, discovering itself, growing and evolving to become more great. A political awakening even, discovering and understanding the governance mechanisms within Bitcoin.
Slowly, but surely, this governance will become more and more centralized, and it will reach the point where it would multiply the existing Bitcoins. Afterwards, it's over. Perhaps some other crypto will take it's place.
I suppose that I think that the governance of Bitcoin will become more decentralized over time, especially with increased adoption. Why do you think that the governance of Bitcoin will become more centralized? I do not have any reason to think that myself, obviously I think the opposite will happen.
Every currency controlled by man fails. Gold is still here.
I think that you are to quick to reach that conclusion, Bitcoin has not been around for that long for the history of currencies. Bitcoin also has a decentralized governance mechanism, which I think is one of the most important innovations that could make the difference in its success compared to currencies that came before. Bitcoin is much more then just a currency as well of course, which I think will further contribute to its success.
I was going to argue that Bitcoin is controlled by the people, but I realize now that you already know this. And that this is why you think that Bitcoin will fail. I suppose you might think that we can radically change Bitcoin so that it is not controlled by the people, I do not think this is possible however since you will not be able to solve the problem of "who decides". Furthermore it would be wrong to attempt to do this to Bitcoin without a split or just starting a new project from scratch. Since that is not what people originally signed up for and it can be argued that this breaks the social contract of Bitcoin.
In my discussions with various members of Core, I have reached the conclusion that most of them simply disagree with the design of Bitcoin, which by design allows the consensus rules to be changed by a sufficient majority of miners and users, independent of what any group of technocrats wish. It is important to remember not to attribute malice where ignorance is equally explanatory. All of the devs I engage with are very strong in cryptography and computer science, which may make them less accepting of the fact that at its core, Bitcoin relies in the economic self-interest of the masses to govern consensus, not a group of educated technocrats. As an educated technocrat myself I can understand the sentiment. It would be better if math and only math governed Bitcoin. But that's not how Bitcoin is actually governed. At the end of the day, if social engineering and developer manipulation can kill Bitcoin, well then we're all betting on the wrong horse.
