Topic: Gavin to Satoshi, 2010 -- "SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (...)" - page 2. (Read 3759 times)

bitcoins consensus, is that of the nodes first pools second.

CORE (not pools, not BU not some random guy,, but core) BYPASSED bitcoins built in consensus. and literally handed the vote to only pools.

this does not mean pools(hashing power) have the ultimate vote on bitcoin...
just the ultimate vote on pushing segwit into taking over bitcoin

segwit is a total rewrite that then makes it even easier to bypass the real bitcoin consensus by making it even easier to keep giving pools the vote (by going soft)

Amen.  That said, it is a very non-significative voting, it is rather like a polling that can be highly biased.  At least, ethereum tried to set up a kind of proof-of-stake VOTE to find out what would happen.  When they were near 90%-10% they thought that they could go ahead.

The nodes "polling" can be influenced by 1) people just automatically updating  2) people setting up a lot of Sybil nodes to influence the outcome  3) people having nodes not necessarily those who will weight in on the market.  I have a node, soon 2, I don't trade, I only do "bitcoin as a currency" if I want to buy something (less and less the case).

well...yeah.

exchanges will list the lowliest of the shitcoins and it costs them nothing.  Obviously they would list both coins in a bitcoin split.

It is not that non-mining nodes have zero importance. Indeed, they are important in that they signal the preferences of their users. Non-mining nodes have essentially zero power.

If only Franky could use the word so that it actually means consensus, instead of constantly repeating-repeating-repeating what he wishes it means

(Franky tells us 50x times daily that consensus is where everyone disagrees on something   )

That's exactly what the ethereum foundation thought.

Why do you think an exchange would forego all the gains to be made in exchanging these coins ?  If I were the CEO of an exchange, I would HURRY LIKE CRAZY to be the first exchange to line up both coins.  Because there will be a massive trading back and fro between them, and each time, I take a trading fee.  They have seen the example with ETC/ETH.

Why are you denying what has already happened elsewhere ?

Normally, a logical argument stands or falls by itself, and has no bearing to its author.  That said, I have no motive.  I'm not involved in crypto, apart from studying it.  I discuss crypto essentially to improve my own understanding of it, which is my only motive.  

A mathematical proof can be checked by itself, just as a cryptographic proof.  In the same way, a logical argument, even though not watertight, is of the same nature.  The arguments I'm putting forward are exactly those that convince ME of what I'm saying.  If you can punch a hole in it, you might convince ME that I'm wrong.  I would then be grateful.


Yes.  I think that is logical, no ?  If you are waiting for blocks that are not mined, your node simply stops.  And if you try to mine them yourself, you *become a miner*, and you've made a new coin.


I've been following the ETC/ETH split as it unrolled, because it was an eye-opener for me.  It was a fascinating time to follow.  I don't know if you "were there".  I had bought 5 ETH to play with a month before or so, and then found myself being owner of ETC and ETH.

When there are TWO coins, that is a full hard fork, the end result is determined by the MARKET.  If the market makes an obvious choice for one or the other, one might die ; but ETC survived on less than 10% of mining power and market cap.   This is probably why people talk of 95% (hopeful) consensus before forking if you do not want 2 prongs.  

That said, bitcoin is nastier in this respect than ethereum, because ethereum, like most more modern alt coins, have continuously adjustable difficulty ; while bitcoin has these 14 days which can be very, very long if your hash rate available is lower.  So if a hard fork keeps this aspect of bitcoin (a hard fork can change ANYTHING, so just as well the difficulty adjustment), and you are left with only 10% of the hash rate, that branch will have a hard time surviving, with a block only every 100 minutes on average, and 5 months for the next difficulty adjustment.  So most probably, bitcoin has a build-in forking protection unless the forkers adapt this.

It maybe emergency hard forks and hard forks they all are the same. The same system, the same protocol and so what is the difference between the two there is nothing really. The difference is only is the time of application, the first one is on a regular and normal basis and the other one would only be used during emergency cases or as last resort. But if it is really necessary for hard forks to come in and settle bitcoin problems and issues then that is no problem with me.

The former has a chance of splitting the network if done without consensus. The latter is only a measure that is supposed to *save* the network in extreme situations (e.g. an attack as described). Don't fall for this rhetoric that non-mining nodes have zero importance.

---

Keep in mind that various (both state and corporate) sponsored actors have long infiltrated all Bitcoin communities for nefarious purposes.

So why are planned hard forks considered dangerous, but emergency hard forks are OK?

No, it is the exact opposite. The ecosystem would definitely be in a state of chaos until the HF is deployed, but the miner's chain would be the worthless one. They can move their coins around sure, but since nobody accepts them they are effectively worthless.

It is likely that there is already a emergency POW change HF ready for deployment (if needed).

But is it not the case that it would only be a worthless alt coin if the exchanges do not upgrade their node to the same protocol. At this point exchanges would be trading worthless IOU's, since nobody can send them UTXO's, and they can't withdraw there coins. The old block chain has no hash rate in the case where 100% of miners are creating bigger blocks.

The emergency POW hard fork you talk about would have to be a new CPU mining algorithm with reset difficulty.

Thoughts?

Nope. In this scenario, the miners would have created a worthless altcoin. This would be seen a malicious act, and an emergency POW change HF would be deployed. Miners would have millions worth of useless equipment.

---

Even mister franky knows the importance of consensus. Miners deciding things on their own != consensus.

Yes. I am a fallible human being. Fortunately I am listening to statements from a variety of human beings and my bitcoin knowledge has improved dramatically recently. If someone successfully points out my misunderstandings, I adjust my thinking. If someone says I am stupid I might have to look it up to see why he thinks I am being stupid because they have provided no information. People making well reasoned arguments are great discussion and knowledge contributors, but they still need to be examined to see if they are ulterior motive driven.

So lets say 100% of miners have good connections with themselves (not relying on incompatible node relay), and start producing bigger blocks. The other nodes are now unsynced. Nodes (which included exchanges) will now have to upgrade. Bitcoin has successfully forked. The old fork is essentially dead, unless someone thinks their CPU's/GPU's/USB asics can move it on to the next difficulty adjustment.

I probably need to thing more about the situation involved where there is a split in mining power. Here, user nodes could have a say in the outcome of what is considered bitcoin, and what is considered bitcoin 2.

It took me some while to understand that too.  But once you see it, it is quite obvious in fact.   I guess people are mentally locked in on this dogma, because they have been making decisions based upon it, which would bring too much doubt and regret if they allowed themselves to understand this.

It blinds them to two aspects of bitcoin: the fact that true centralization is mining pool centralization (the deciders of the block chain building), and that this centralization is already well advanced ; and the fact that bitcoin is going to lose its status as a currency to become a reserve currency because of an erroneous argument over the importance of non-mining nodes and the cost of disk space versus the emerging fee market and the economies of scale that proof of work induces.  

I think it is too late now to change this.  Block size now being an economic parameter determining fee market, the consensus mechanism will most probably make that this cannot be changed any more, especially because the miners are the ones that are on the receiving side of the fees.  It could still be changed, if mining centralization is sufficiently advanced, but I don't think that that is the case for the moment, to come to an oligarch consensus without sufficient dissidents.

As to the fact that "important bitcoin people" could fail to understand this aspect, there are only two conclusions: they understand much less about the dynamics of the system than one would expect them to have ; or they have a good reason to pretend not to understand it.

"if your income depends on you not understanding something, chances for you to understand it are low"

I said this somewhere else, but defining the word "consensus" without having it referring to a genuine phenomenon, is a useless exercise.  Consensus is a phenomenon.  Not something you can define as "what should be" or "the will of the people" or any other abstract definition, devoid of relationship to reality.

Consensus is the observable phenomenon that a lot of different people, outside of any hierarchical constraint, use the same rule set to come to the same data set.  In the case of a crypto currency, this is even more amazing in the sense that the rule set, and the data set, are not what is the most profitable for each of the participants.  But nevertheless, the *phenomenon* of people settling to the same protocol, and the same block chain, is the "consensus" phenomenon.  It has two aspects.  You could say that it has some "ergodicity property".  The consensus phenomenon applies just as well to the "different participants at a given time", as "over time".  The phenomenon over time is called "immutability". 


I don't deny this.  But now, you cannot talk any more about "majority", because ETC and ETH are different currencies, different protocols, different block chains and different users.   Whether the market share of ETC is bigger or smaller than ETH does not matter any more than whether ETH market share is bigger or smaller than bitcoin's or litecoin's.  They are different crypto currencies, with different consensus, different protocol, different block chain.

Mining always adjusts, in the end, to profitability.  That is true after a hard fork from a single currency, but it is true also between totally different currencies (at least, if the mining is compatible with the investment in hardware).  Mining hash rate is normally proportional to (block reward per unit of time) * (market price of coin) / difficulty cost price, over different currencies with compatible mining in the short time, and over all crypto currencies in the long term (after mining hardware can be written off).

Thank you. I have been trying to make this point for ages, always falling on deaf ears. It is nice to know that at least someone else gets it.

hashing power is only a signpost, a best guess, as to what the consensus really is.

ETC failed to gain majority hash rate, because it failed to gain majority market share, not the other way around....

Thanks for understanding that too.  Bitcoin not being a "proof of node" coin, nodes aren't the boss, like you say.


I learned a lot too during the ETH/ETC split about the dynamics of consensus.  It was a fascinating experience. Maybe bitcoin people didn't follow this drama very closely and didn't learn as much about how proof of work consensus networks really work.