This is the type of answer I was fishing for. OK, is it proven that an isolated (partitioned) block chain can still reconcile transactions?
Absolutely. Initially, the average time per block will increase as there will be less mining hash power within the partition than the total hashpower of the world prior to the partition. Once the next difficulty adjustment block is reached, the difficulty target will be auto-adjusted so that mining is less difficult and the average time between blocks will drop closer to 10 minutes. If no additional hashpower is added to or removed from the partition over the next 2 weeks, the next difficulty adjustment will bring things back to the usual 10 minute average.
The risk in this situation is that some partitions may have more hash power than others. Therefore, their blockchains will have more total proof of work. If one of those blockchains were to leak into a partition with less hashpower, it could trigger a reorganization of the blockchain in that lower hashpower partition which would replace ALL the blocks with those in the chain from the partition with more total hashpower.
This is why I suggested that each partition would likely implement code that prevents any other partition's blockchain from usurping the local blockchain using something like a checkpoint or a forking change.
That way, if the blockchain from another partition leaked through, it would be seen as a forked chain much like Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV, Bitcoin Gold, etc.
Once the world reached relative peace again, the survivors would need to decide if and/or how they want to reconcile the 4 partitions.
In my ignorance of this topic, I assumed no.
It's easy to make mistaken assumptions while you're still learning how the bitcoin protocol actually works. Fortunately, these mistaken assumptions can become learning opportunities. Whenevere you think you've figured out some major weakness in Bitcoin, it's a good idea to remember:
- 1. This Bitccoin thing isn't new. It has been around for well over a decade now.
- 2. A lot of VERY smart people have spent a lot of time testing, thinking, analyzing, and discussing this protocol. There's a pretty good chance that you aren't the first in the world to ever have had the thought that you've come up with.
- 3. If it turns out that your thought actually IS a weakness in bitcoin, it's pretty likely that it's not new. It's a weakness that is already known amongst the technical experts. As such, it's been determined by most of the world to be either very unlikely to actually happen with the specific details necessary for the problem, or an issue that can be easily dealt with causing minimal damage in the long term.
- 4. If you've actually come up with something that nobody else has ever thought of before, and it is a real problem, then it's probably going to take weeks or months of discussion, testing, and analysis among technical experts to determine just how likely and serious the issue is. The initial responses you get here are going to end up being from people that have opinions without facts. No actual expert is going to weigh in on something brand new until they've had time to investigate and analyze it.
You're also likely to get better (less confrontational) answers if you pose your question as:
"Here's something I've been thinking about that I don't fully understand yet. Can someone explain to me how this thought I've had is handled within the Bitcoin protocol"
instead of:
"...Blockchain will be useless...!...pure fantasy...This is a real issue...Blockchain is not a reliable store of value...That is the bottom line"
(also note, I've heard this particular concern or something similar dozens of times over the past 9 years. It's been thought about. Alot. By a lot of people.)
This proposal seems to indicate that the blockchain will fork independently for each and keep on trucking.
As long as there is enough hashpower available to the partition, yes.
Or, perhaps an isolated blockchain can self heal?
That depends on the specific details of the individual situation. As I pointed out above, without the creation a checkpoint or forking change, there is a reorganization risk for partitions with less hashpower than others. If there are enough communication leaks, this may not be a significant problem. Transactions can be leaked to the partitions with the most hashpower and blocks can be leaked back. If there are NO communication leaks, then this is not a problem. You'll have 4 isolated blockchains and no risk of reorganization. If the leaks are small and infrequent, then the partitions will almost CERTAINLY implement a checkpoint or forking change.
I have no idea how robust such technology was designed.
Surprisingly robust. There were a few small hiccups early on, but those were quickly resolved and with a decade of thought and real-world use what has resulted is quite durable.
As an retired engineer and coder, I will believe it when I see it tested.
Take a look at the Bitcoin forks. Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin SV. Bitcoin Gold. Etc.
These all share the same initial blockchain. Then, at a point in time, they split off (partitioned). They implemented a forking change, and continued on in their partitioned rule-set with their partitioned miners and their partitioned users. Sure, they are on the same internet as Bitcoin, but there is NOTHING about their operation that requires any communication with any (original) Bitcoin software at all. Meanwhile, the original Bitcoin continued along without any issue even though a portion of its users, nodes, miners, etc were no longer communicating with it.
Has high availability been robustly tested on blockchain? Got a link?
Fire up a few testnet miners and nodes on an isolated local network. Then yank a connection that separates your setup into two separate isolated networks each with a portion of the nodes and miners. See what happens. With an understanding of how the system works, it's pretty obvious what will happen, but you're welcome to test it yourself. Isn't open source and decentralization great?
This is NOT a theory and partitions are likely. We have had many countries put up firewalls briefly because of internal conflict or coups. In fact the first act of business was shut down all information systems. It has been done at least one dozen times all ready. So, never say never, when this is well documented to have happened many times.
I wouldn't argue that partitions are unlikely. I would argue that leakproof partitions are all but impossible, but in this case it really doesn't matter for the discussion at hand.
It is my hope that someone with actual blockchain technical chops can educate us all as to how such things will play out when the time comes.
I'll do what I can. Perhaps we can all learn a bit more together.
I hope to be proven wrong. My experience tells me I'm on the right track.
I'm curious. What part of the system does your experience tell you won't work? Perhaps there's a weakness in the system that I'm overlooking, or perhaps there's a part of the system that you don't understand well enough. We'll need to dig into the details of what you think wont' work to figure it out, but experience tells me I'm on the right track.