Questions about soft fork | Bitcointalksearch.org

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: pooya87 on August 17, 2023, 08:30:15 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 17, 2023, 03:43:01 AM

Disregards the majority? Although BIP-148 was controversial, SegWit was still wanted by the majority. It only became a necessary "movement", or a kind of "mechanism" for SegWit's activation, because Jihan Wu and the mining cartel were playing political games by using miner signalling as a political tool which delayed activation.

"want" can not be some abstract idea in a decentralized ledger. It must be explicitly expressed through voting and any proposal that requires/enforces a fork like BIP16, BIP148, BIP341, etc. must be activated after checking those votes. BIP148 does NOT do that!

In other words whether or not the majority wanted SegWit is irrelevant since BIP148 did not even care about that which is what leads to chain-splits!

Of course it doesn't do that and of course there were risks, BUT without the actual campaign for a UASF, there wouldn't have been a BIP-149, or the NYA, or the economic majority and the users wouldn't have started to have the urgency to want for SegWit to be activated. The miners would have delayed it further, playing political games by using signalling as their tool.

HmmMAA

hero member

Activity: 1111

Merit: 588

My bad , by miners i mean mining nodes/pools .

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: DooMAD on August 17, 2023, 07:44:19 AM

Voting requires permission. Running code to enforce network rules is an enactment of will. The consensus mechanism then allows those who agree on a common ruleset to build a chain together. In practice, it's a very different concept to voting, in the traditional sense.

The question at hand is how users of a decentralized protocol will collectively determine which ruleset to uphold. Running the software represents an expression of intention, although its execution would be significantly swayed if there was a way for us all to convene and acknowledge the prevailing majority's preferences. We probably can't do that efficiently, so we have to separately run software, and see the consequences later.

That, alone, is a disincentive to separate networks by hard forking. The consensus we currently have is invaluable. The risk of introducing turmoil to the current state of the network outweighs any potential benefits.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 17, 2023, 03:43:01 AM

Disregards the majority? Although BIP-148 was controversial, SegWit was still wanted by the majority. It only became a necessary "movement", or a kind of "mechanism" for SegWit's activation, because Jihan Wu and the mining cartel were playing political games by using miner signalling as a political tool which delayed activation.

"want" can not be some abstract idea in a decentralized ledger. It must be explicitly expressed through voting and any proposal that requires/enforces a fork like BIP16, BIP148, BIP341, etc. must be activated after checking those votes. BIP148 does NOT do that!

In other words whether or not the majority wanted SegWit is irrelevant since BIP148 did not even care about that which is what leads to chain-splits!

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: HmmMAA on August 16, 2023, 03:37:56 PM

vote

Before we get too in depth, I'd pause to question this particular aspect. I believe when satoshi used the word "vote" in the whitepaper, it was in order for people to latch on to an existing concept that they understand. I don't think it was intended to imply that consensus is akin to voting, though.

Voting requires permission. Running code to enforce network rules is an enactment of will. The consensus mechanism then allows those who agree on a common ruleset to build a chain together. In practice, it's a very different concept to voting, in the traditional sense.

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: HmmMAA on August 16, 2023, 03:37:56 PM

Nope , there isn't . Imagine voting in a country that has no electoral catalogues and anyone could vote as many times he want , could you ever have a valid election ?

Absolutely not, and this is fundamentally how a UASF works.

Quote from: HmmMAA on August 16, 2023, 03:37:56 PM

That's why miners are the best choice . They are known and you can see if you agree or disagree with their choice

First of all, miners don't have to be known. There is already a fair percentage of miners who are anonymous. We only know that the majority of the hash rate comes from known pools. Secondly, if I can't vote, how can the miner know if he's made the right choice?

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: pooya87 on August 16, 2023, 07:33:36 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 16, 2023, 06:16:05 AM

Taken in the right context, the reason why I emphasized that the Core Developers supported an idea is precisely because of the merit behind the idea - at that time.

The abstract idea of nodes voicing their preference is a good one with merit but BIP148 is not and it is instead a dangerous proposal because of a simple fact that it disregards majority. It simply has no way of checking or caring what the majority says, whether it is 1% or 99% it will enforce the change!

In any change, regardless of what it is, we must reach consensus amongst network participants otherwise it goes against the idea of being decentralized.

Disregards the majority? Although BIP-148 was controversial, SegWit was still wanted by the majority. It only became a necessary "movement", or a kind of "mechanism" for SegWit's activation, because Jihan Wu and the mining cartel were playing political games by using miner signalling as a political tool which delayed activation.

HmmMAA

hero member

Activity: 1111

Merit: 588

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on August 16, 2023, 12:46:21 PM

There has to be a way of collectively voting for a change without giving absolutely every voting power to the miners, isn't there?

Nope , there isn't . Imagine voting in a country that has no electoral catalogues and anyone could vote as many times he want , could you ever have a valid election ?
That's a problem that anonymity causes , to have a valid/honest result you would need known entities . That's why miners are the best choice . They are known and you can see if you agree or disagree with their choice . The economic incentive will drive them to decide the best for the network or they will lose clients and profit .

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

The abstract idea of nodes voting for a change by just running a full node software is just terrible, in my opinion. The majority isn't determined by the number of Bitcoin clients, for if it was, we wouldn't have mining; we'd select the order of the transactions by voting as in Proof-of-Stake, but with instances of Bitcoin clients instead of money.

There has to be a way of collectively voting for a change without giving absolutely every voting power to the miners, isn't there?

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 16, 2023, 06:16:05 AM

Taken in the right context, the reason why I emphasized that the Core Developers supported an idea is precisely because of the merit behind the idea - at that time.

The abstract idea of nodes voicing their preference is a good one with merit but BIP148 is not and it is instead a dangerous proposal because of a simple fact that it disregards majority. It simply has no way of checking or caring what the majority says, whether it is 1% or 99% it will enforce the change!

In any change, regardless of what it is, we must reach consensus amongst network participants otherwise it goes against the idea of being decentralized.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: DooMAD on August 15, 2023, 08:22:50 AM

Quote from: pooya87 on August 15, 2023, 07:06:34 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 15, 2023, 03:19:30 AM

There were Core Developers who supported it.

That's never a valid argument if you ask me. For one, we have had Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn were also core developers once and they both went nutz and made questionable moves and statements. One supporting faketoshi and the other spreading FUD about bitcoin... Grin

Ideas are best judged on merit and not by which individuals support them. It's not a popularity contest and we don't need to introduce a cult-of-personality element. Appeals to authority aren't the correct method for network governance.

As for what's considered an "attack", that's always going to be subjective. Some ideas are more reckless or dangerous than others, but ultimately it's all just people doing what they want to do.

Taken in the right context, the reason why I emphasized that the Core Developers supported an idea is precisely because of the merit behind the idea - at that time. The Scaling Debate was a unique period in Bitcoin's history, which probably no one in the community knew what move was truly going to be the right move. I could only imagine how enlightening it was for everyone directly involved.

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: pooya87 on August 15, 2023, 07:06:34 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 15, 2023, 03:19:30 AM

There were Core Developers who supported it.

That's never a valid argument if you ask me. For one, we have had Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn were also core developers once and they both went nutz and made questionable moves and statements. One supporting faketoshi and the other spreading FUD about bitcoin... Grin

Ideas are best judged on merit and not by which individuals support them. It's not a popularity contest and we don't need to introduce a cult-of-personality element. Appeals to authority aren't the correct method for network governance.

As for what's considered an "attack", that's always going to be subjective. Some ideas are more reckless or dangerous than others, but ultimately it's all just people doing what they want to do.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: pooya87 on August 15, 2023, 07:06:34 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 15, 2023, 03:19:30 AM

There were Core Developers who supported it.

That's never a valid argument if you ask me. For one, we have had Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn were also core developers once and they both went nutz and made questionable moves and statements. One supporting faketoshi and the other spreading FUD about bitcoin... Grin

Valid argument or not, it's still not an attack. It was merely one of the mechanisms to have SegWit activated. When the miners were acting against the interest of the network, through BIP-148 it was shown that there are checks and balances, which prevents the centralization of power towards the mining cartel. It was a learning experience for those who were directly involved, and for the other participants of the network.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: Wind_FURY on August 15, 2023, 03:19:30 AM

There were Core Developers who supported it.

That's never a valid argument if you ask me. For one, we have had Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn were also core developers once and they both went nutz and made questionable moves and statements. One supporting faketoshi and the other spreading FUD about bitcoin... Grin

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: pooya87 on March 04, 2023, 11:12:39 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on February 27, 2023, 06:31:05 AM

Jihan Wu and his friends from the mining cartel

They actually created the shitcoin called bcash using the same principles of BIP148, it was even called MASF (mocking the UASF thing). That is a minority group creating a fork disregarding the rest of the network (including miners' votes).

Quote from: Wind_FURY on February 27, 2023, 06:31:05 AM

The miners don't speak for the whole network. If it did, then the network is centralized towards the Mining Cartel.

I never said they do anywhere! But you can't deny that miners are an important part of the network and attacks like BIP148 are completely ignoring/eliminating miners.

I never denied the importance of miners, but focusing the discussion during SegWit's activation, they did use miner-signalling as a political tool to delay, or even as an attempt to stop the soft fork. The UASF/BIP-148 was a necessary move to distribute power throughout the network.

Plus saying that, BIP-148 specifically, is an attack against the network is wrong. There were Core Developers who supported it. Some even preferred it.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

I'm sorry for the late reply, I didn't see your post.

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: wajik-tempe on March 06, 2023, 10:54:44 AM

This means that they will not be able to participate in transactions that require SegWit, and they may miss out on certain benefits such as lower fees.

Actually, they can. Constructing a SegWit transaction is possible regardless of the node you're running, even though I'm not sure if Core would allow you to do that.

Quote from: wajik-tempe on March 06, 2023, 10:54:44 AM

A soft fork adds stricter rules, but they are still compatible with the old rules. Invalidating old, valid rules is not part of a soft fork

You've got it wrong. Invalidating the old rules is what's the soft fork is all about. These "stricter rules" you mention in the former sentence is the restriction of the old rules.

wajik-tempe

sr. member

Activity: 1022

Merit: 252

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on February 19, 2023, 12:39:27 PM

Question: is the invalidation of an old, valid rule considered part of soft fork? Yes, according to the wiki. So, you can mine an invalid block, that is valid in old clients terms, and broadcast it in the old client network. Does that encourage old clients to switch to new version, since they might hear on blocks that are likely to reorg? What could be the excuse of a non-Segwit node to stay in non-Segwit?

if a non-SegWit node wants to stay on the old version of the protocol, they can do so, but they will not be able to validate transactions that use the new SegWit rules. This means that they will not be able to participate in transactions that require SegWit, and they may miss out on certain benefits such as lower fees. A soft fork adds stricter rules, but they are still compatible with the old rules. Invalidating old, valid rules is not part of a soft fork

tromp

legendary

Activity: 990

Merit: 1108

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on March 05, 2023, 09:01:16 AM

I sometimes hear the phrase "it breaks consensus" from hard fork critics. Did Bitcoin Cash break consensus?

Yes, they did, not just by allowing larger blocks, but by in fact *requiring* a block larger than 1MB in size.

As a result, BTC block 478559 was rejected by Bitcoin Cash for not exceeding 1MB [1]:

Code:

ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-too-small, size limits failed (code 16) (block 00000000000000000019f112ec0a9982926f1258cdcc558dd7c3b7e5dc7fa148)

It took a while longer for Bitcoin Cash to reach height 478559.

[1] https://connortumbleson.com/2017/08/02/bitcoin-cash-bcc-is-born/

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

I sometimes hear the phrase "it breaks consensus" from hard fork critics. Did Bitcoin Cash break consensus? It surely upsets the network for a while, but if such upset were to break consensus, it isn't a strong consensus to begin with. Breaking backwards compatibility, technically speaking, does mean breaking consensus, but economically speaking, you are free to vote against the hard fork by selling the post-hardfork coins for the pre-hardfork.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: Wind_FURY on February 27, 2023, 06:31:05 AM

Jihan Wu and his friends from the mining cartel

They actually created the shitcoin called bcash using the same principles of BIP148, it was even called MASF (mocking the UASF thing). That is a minority group creating a fork disregarding the rest of the network (including miners' votes).

Quote from: Wind_FURY on February 27, 2023, 06:31:05 AM

The miners don't speak for the whole network. If it did, then the network is centralized towards the Mining Cartel.

I never said they do anywhere! But you can't deny that miners are an important part of the network and attacks like BIP148 are completely ignoring/eliminating miners.

Topic: Questions about soft fork (Read 717 times)