Thank you for the informative replies. I think that the consensus rules changing so frequently and that hard forks are possible isn't good for Bitcoin.
If Bitcoin Cash now gains momentum, gains more CPU power, it will undermine Bitcoin. Then Bitcoin Cash won't get respect because the whole thing can repeat again and again and again...
Are there any cryptocurrencies where the consensus rules are fixed from the start and can never be changed?
Topic: Bitcoin naming & who has the power... some newbie questions (Read 403 times)
Yes, what if someone controls 50% of the mining ?
Now some miners have ~10% I think.
Now some miners have ~10% I think.
You can see a rough picture of the situation here https://blockchain.info/pools
Pool know that having over 50% constitutes a risk for the community.
They don't want to devalue the coin themselves, as it is their revenue. Going above 50% is discouraged.
kindly advise . thxs
achow101, thanks for the detailed breakdown of the governance of bitcoin. I was wondering, do you know who came up with the name Bitcoin Cash? Is it inspired by ZCash, OkCash or another coin with cash in its name?
Yes, what if someone controls 50% of the mining ?
Now some miners have ~10% I think.
Now some miners have ~10% I think.
You can see a rough picture of the situation here https://blockchain.info/pools
Pool know that having over 50% constitutes a risk for the community.
They don't want to devalue the coin themselves, as it is their revenue. Going above 50% is discouraged.
If multiple node/mining types can support Bitcoin how do these same types then also support different currencies, e.g. Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Unlimited, along with Bitcoin?
It isn't hard to write software that can support multiple consensus rules, they just need to be separated and know that they are separate coins. However Bitcoin ABC and Bitcoin Unlimited are not clients which support multiple currencies. Rather they are clients which support different consensus rules but, for the time being, are compatible with Bitcoin's consensus rules.If Bitcoin isn't a democracy then is it exposed if one entity controls >50% of node/mining CPU power + the developers of the leading node/software type e.g. Bitcoin Core. Maybe the entity could implement whatever protocol changes/consensus rules it wants?
Again, Bitcoin isn't a democracy, nor is it any other type of governance system. It is a consensus system. You are either following the consensus rules and are thus using the coin, or you are not following them and are not using the coin. The consensus rules only change if everyone agrees to change them and simultaneously does so. Even if some entity controls the developers of the reference implementation and a majority hashrate, they can't change the consensus rules at will. It requires that the users agree to the change as well. Otherwise there will be a fork and the coin will split in two. There will be some users, miners, and developers on one chain and some users, miners, and developers on the other chain. They become two distinct coins with each one having its own consensus rules.It seems after all coins are mined then transaction fees will be the only motivational force for mining.
Yes. That is the point. The idea is that there will be enough transactions and fee pressure that transaction fees will be what pays miners, not the block subsidy.
Yes, what if someone controls 50% of the mining ?
Now some miners have ~10% I think.
Now some miners have ~10% I think.
Very informative, so,
If multiple node/mining types can support Bitcoin how do these same types then also support different currencies, e.g. Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Unlimited, along with Bitcoin?
If Bitcoin isn't a democracy then is it exposed if one entity controls >50% of node/mining CPU power + the developers of the leading node/software type e.g. Bitcoin Core. Maybe the entity could implement whatever protocol changes/consensus rules it wants?
It seems after all coins are mined then transaction fees will be the only motivational force for mining.
If multiple node/mining types can support Bitcoin how do these same types then also support different currencies, e.g. Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Unlimited, along with Bitcoin?
If Bitcoin isn't a democracy then is it exposed if one entity controls >50% of node/mining CPU power + the developers of the leading node/software type e.g. Bitcoin Core. Maybe the entity could implement whatever protocol changes/consensus rules it wants?
It seems after all coins are mined then transaction fees will be the only motivational force for mining.
Why isn't bitcoin called bitcoin core? Or maybe another way of asking this is, if another type of node becomes the supermajority does that node type become "bitcoin"?
Bitcoin Core is the name of a software, not the name of the coin. The name of the coin should not be based on the name of the software that most nodes are running. There can and are multiple node software that enforce the exact same consensus rules and all have different names.After all bitcoins are mined who will the power lie with (for voting on protocol changes)? I can potentially see how nodes will vote for increasing the no. of bitcoins and keeping higher fees while users would want fixed no. of bitcoins and lower fees. If >50% of nodes are one "entity" and the nodes have the power then that is far from decentralised.
There is no voting. No one votes on anything. Bitcoin is not a democracy. Even after all coins are mined, mining will still continue. No one has the power to unilaterally change Bitcoin's consensus rules. The consensus rules change when the supermajority of users, nodes, and miners all agree to change the consensus rules. Typically the consensus rules are activated when miners signal that they will be enforcing the new consensus rules. That is not a vote, it is a signal of readines.At the moment anyone can pick their type of node/mining, but what about after all the bitcoins are mined?
There will still be mining and there will still be nodes. Mining is not just the process of generating new coins, it is the process of including transactions in blocks and that can, must, and will continue even after all Bitcoin has been mined.
Hello, I'm a novice but the upcoming fork has made me curious about bitcoin.
Why isn't bitcoin called bitcoin core? Or maybe another way of asking this is, if another type of node becomes the supermajority does that node type become "bitcoin"?
After all bitcoins are mined who will the power lie with (for voting on protocol changes)? I can potentially see how nodes will vote for increasing the no. of bitcoins and keeping higher fees while users would want fixed no. of bitcoins and lower fees. If >50% of nodes are one "entity" and the nodes have the power then that is far from decentralised.
At the moment anyone can pick their type of node/mining, but what about after all the bitcoins are mined?
I hope these questions make sense, it's quite likely I'm looking at it all in the wrong way, so I'm open to having my perspective shifted (radically).
Thanks, tarr
Why isn't bitcoin called bitcoin core? Or maybe another way of asking this is, if another type of node becomes the supermajority does that node type become "bitcoin"?
After all bitcoins are mined who will the power lie with (for voting on protocol changes)? I can potentially see how nodes will vote for increasing the no. of bitcoins and keeping higher fees while users would want fixed no. of bitcoins and lower fees. If >50% of nodes are one "entity" and the nodes have the power then that is far from decentralised.
At the moment anyone can pick their type of node/mining, but what about after all the bitcoins are mined?
I hope these questions make sense, it's quite likely I'm looking at it all in the wrong way, so I'm open to having my perspective shifted (radically).
Thanks, tarr
Jump to: