Topic: what (technically) enforces bitcoin not to exceed 21 million cap? - page 2. (Read 4929 times)

There really was no premine and you can _trivially_ verify it for yourself. Please spend a few minutes actively investigating rather than believing charlatans on the forum, before wasting may more of ours.  This is the technical subforum, it's reasonable to expect you to be able to do a bit of your own homework.

You mean Satoshi did not premine bitcoin? What was his incentive then working 2 years on the project (probably as a team)? Good will alone? I do not mind him premine as he opened the doors of crypto-currencies literally introducing the concept/technology to the world but it would be wrong to say otherwise according to this, this, this and this.

Of course the average user does not understand C++. But MANY people check the code. I'm sure somebody would ring a bell if he found something suspicious.

It would be welcome from must users, true, but it developpers don't want to do it because they feel it would be an attack vector, it won't happen.

But we'll see. Anyway, there are multiple wallets, each implementing it's own feature set. It -cannot- be made that they all use new rules together without prior concertation, which would be very unlikely to stay secret.

Indeed, but users:
a) don't all use Mt.Gox.
b) Dind't care because it was not a breaking problem for ordinary user. It was a breaking problem for Mt.Gox because of poor programming.
c) If there is no auto-update, by the same inertia, they would not update immediately; and the malicious code would very likely been found at that point, and action taken.
d) Even with auto-update, the network is really dependant on miners, who are a lot more aware of Bitcoin news. clients popping transactions invalid by miners's rule will not confirm. It WILL break their wallet and they will then check for answers online where they are going to be made aware of the news.

Open source does not mean that it is accessible to ordinary users. Most people don't know C++ and can't understand the code.

Auto updating would be a welcome feature for most users. Sort of like OTA updates available on android phones. The way I look at it is package managers were once looked at with hostility in the linux world but now people recommend using your distro's repos vs. installing from source.

The point I'm trying to make is that you can always count on user inertia. Ordinary users don't frequent this forum. Just look at how many were caught unawares by the recent Mt. Gox problems even though it's been brewing for months and there's this huge thread about it in the service discussion forum.

The point is, if a vast majority (90%+) of the hashpower decide to change the rules of Bitcoin, against the will of most of the users, there is now two chains, that fork at a block X. From that point on, there is two chains:
a) The "original" chain, on which there are a lot of users, and few miners.
b) The "new" chain, on which there are a lot of miners, and few users.

Now, since it is in the economic interest of the miners that people use their chain instead of the old chain, they may very well collude to render the old chain unusable. For example, mining empty blocks, refusing to confirm transaction, or even revert transactions (since they would be in a 51%+ situation)

The users on the old chain cannot retaliate: They don't mine, or if they do, they don't have enough hashpower to significantly damage the "new" chain; and anyway, any hashpower they divert to attack the "new" chain renders theirs even more broken.

Thus the users are forced to accept the rules of the new chain; or stop using bitcoin. But in an hypothetical future where bitcoin gets a wide adoption, they might not be able to leave bitcoin.

Of course, all this is in an hypothetical scenario where miners collude to change the rules of bitcoin. We are not there now. But all I wanted to say is that if an large enough proportion of miners agree on someting, there is very few we can do against it.

1. The program is open-source. The whole world can check developpement code (and a lot do) and would notice it even before it is deployed.
2. I would be surprised if they ever implement auto-updating because many would feel that it would be a possible attack vector.
3. Even if they ever made auto-update, and some evil developper bypassed the normal procedure to "push" an update in which he would have secretly changed the block generation rules, it would not be long people would notice the change. The most likely thing that would happen then would be that people revert to the old version. The old version considers invalid the new blocks, and starts mining at the last "old" block, thus forking the chain. But after a few hours/days max, the "old" chain gets longer than the "new" one, and the changes are reverted.

They could sneak in changes. For example make the client self-updating and a few versions later release this change in the upper limit of coins. The change will propagate instantly to users around the world.

This sounds dumb!

Why not just start my own fork and be the only miner and attack the live fork? There's no way this could work.

(And "Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" in the genesis block is the proof.)

Some do it as a hobby.  Others do it because there is a particular feature they want or bug they want fixed. Some companies or organizations will pay developers to implement specific features they want or to fix specific bugs they want fixed.  As a benefit of employment some companies pay their employees to work on open source projects a certain number of hours per month.

I suspect that "The Bitcoin Foundation" pays some developers to implement the features that the foundation's member's desire.


That is absolutely not true.  There are no pre-mined coins in bitcoin.

No single developer can push a new release version. It takes the actions of at least 3 developers and widespread consensus for this to occur. Bitcoin is not like Linux: it's not lead from the top.

what incentives does a core developer have? it is not an easy job and should be taking a lot of effort that could have been turned into some income if spent otherwise. Any other thing than self-satisfaction and donations? I have heard somewhere core dev's salaries are paid in bitcoin by satoshi from the premined bitcoins, though I don't remember the source, is that true?

People who chose bitcoin may have chosen bitcoin because of the decentralised and irreversible nature. For me, I don't care about the 21 million cap. I know that some people did chose the bitcoin for that though, so I don't expect (nor hope) that that change that in the short term.

But I -do- hope that if, maybe in 20 years, it is realised that a non-inflationary coin does't make a workable economy; if it hinders bitcoin, then people would be willig (by concensus) to change that rule. If ratianal and scientific arguments suport a change, people should not dogmatically stick to an idea, for the only reason that it would be changing how the coins was designed 20 yrs ago. Bitcoin is a human creation, for humans. Designers today not cannot know the future, nor can I; so we should be ready to accept change in the future.

Bitcoin is there to serve humans; not the other way around.


In fact, there was a successful double-spend made at that fork: A merchant was successfully fooled by a transaction accepted by new software, but not by the old; but there was also a broadcasted transaction that was valid by the old network, so when miners reverted to the old software to solve the problem the double-spend transaction was the one the network accepted. Other than that there was not other reported case.

Still, there are indeed many small fork everyday, but theses are not problematic, for they are statistically expected. It is longer forks, persisting for more than 3-4 blocks that are the problem.


That's not entirely true. The Bitcoin developpemers is an organic movement. There are indeed no "appointed" leader, but still, people contributing often gain trust of the developpers, and become de facto leaders. But it is all based on trust. They -cannot- push changes by themselves, because change is based on concensus. But the opinion of those "leading" weight more in the balance. That's why most changes are coordinated by the Foundation.

But it is similar in many open source movemens. There are hundreds of Linux distros, that have forked from each other over a dissagreamenet on how to do things. Some are much more popular than the others. Still, Linus Torvald's opinion is more "trusted" than the average programmer, because he started it, the same as Satoshi has started Bitcoin.

Sometimes the lead can change entirely. Most of the developpers of OpenOffice dissagred with the "lead" a few years ago, so the all forked the project and started "libreoffice", which is now the de-facto open office suite.

And I and MANY others do not see an advantage at all.  If people want a coin that can be inflated, then they shouldn't be choosing bitcoin at all.  Those who choose bitcoin, are choosing a coin that is well known to have a very specific inflation schedule.  Therefore, since they are choosing to use it, it MUST be something they are willing to accept.  I just don't see a very large percentage of the userbase (or minerbase) accepting such a change.  The "Bitcoin Foundation" is a self-appointed club that can do whatever they want.  They are not "bitcoin" and they do not control "bitcoin".  You can create a club of your own with your friends and you can call your club "The REAL Bitcoin Foundation".  You will have just as much authority and control as they do.


Anybody can make changes to the software.  There is no centralization in the matter.  The Bitcoin Foundation has software that their club manages, but you can start your own club and maintain your own version of the software and nobody can stop you.  I can do the same, and nobody can stop me.  Then users can choose which version of the software has the features that they desire.


There is a small chance that some of the transactions were double-spent to a different address in the fork that eventually became the consensus fork, but the vast majority of transactions would have eventually confirmed in both forks, just like they do every time there is a fork.  (Note: forks happen ALL the time. It's been a long time since I've looked at the statistics, but I'd expect the blockchain to fork several times per week. Most of the time the forks last for just 1 or 2 blocks before the network settles on a consensus.  This is not unusual.  It is part of the design of Bitcoin.)



They don't all sit in an office somewhere.  They are all over the world.  Even so, if EVERYONE that has EVER contributed to the bitcoin software was all eliminated on the same day, there are MANY other qualified computer programmers that are willing and able to continue to maintain the bitcoin software.  They would simply need to be MUCH more careful about hiding their identities.


I don't think this is true.  Can you prove that you know the full legal name of EVERY person that has ever contributed any code to the bitcoin software?  Even if you had that, you'd need a lot more to find the actual person that made the change.  Do you have any idea how many people in the world are named Daniel Hamilton?


There is no such thing as an "official developer" in bitcoin.  The idea of a "core developer" is just a developer who contributes often.  That doesn't make him "official".  If he stops contributing, and someone else begins contributing, then the new person becomes a "core developer".

thx for all the replies. I guess in case of a 1% inflation rate change kind of a thing on bitcoin, bitcoin foundation should better ask people and get consensus first to prevent any confusion on the imposing. I do not see any advantage at least befare 5 years.

I think it is slightly misleading to say that bitcoin is 100% decentralized since nothing can be 100% decentralized. There must be people developing, improving and maybe even regulating/altering it over time (what we call core dev team). So the protocol runs decentralized but the development is not and probably can not or maybe even should not (arguable). Some more questions;

1) BTW, a lesser known fork has happened in the history of bitcoin while updating clients. https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/829.pdf I really really wonder what happened to transactions issued by the clients on the wrong forked which is abandoned later. Did anybody loose anything (in case anyone has information)? Guesses? Recently a fork caused by a similar client update issue happened to doge as well.

2) an apocalypse scenario: FBI busted dev team and jailed them(well I know, not probable any more especially after kanye west, kaiser and another private company ripples came up with their own currencies but just say so, it might be easy if FBI choses so since the core developers are pretty public, we know them by their names etc.) What I guess is that bitcoin price would crush first(would be the 5th major crush), and it is probable that some consensus is formed on the internet by non-official developers, and bitcoin would go on, and increase in value over time. Your guess about how this would happen? Do you see such a consensus forming probable? Regards..

Yes, but in turn, if no miner wants to mine the transactions with the "old" rules, then there is no value in those coins either. There's a sort of equilibirum to be found: The rules cannot be determined by miners alone, nor can it be determined by users alone; because then the other party won't be there to do it's job. There must be a consensus in which most of the users AND most of the miners agree.

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

I really think it is about concensus. Changing the 21 million cap would be -huge- change, so it would have to be agreed by almost everybody. I do think 95%+ would be reasonable. Once accepted, the 5% left would not have very much of a choice to change because their economy would be very small and unuseful, their "oldcoins" would be worth noting.

THAT BEING SAID.

1. 95% of users does not mean 95% of miners. But it is the miners that enforce the rules. If 95% of the miners agreed, there is not much we could do, because we rely on them for network security.

Even if all the users chose to stay with the "old" bitcoin, any big miner of the "new" bitcoin could easily perform a 51% attack on the "old" chain, rendering it useless. So users are forced to go with the "new" coin.

2. I do believe that at some point on the future, the 21 million cap will be removed; for many reasons:
  a) Economic: Many economists believe that a low (and predictable) inflation is better that deflation. inflation incites investment, deflation incites hoarding. (I do no trust wall street/bankers, but I do trust economics sciences textbooks) But to be honest, I don't really think that anybody really know how an deflationnary economy by design might work. So we'll see.
  b) Miners greed: Why not have transaction fees AND generation!
  c) Miners are a security service, they need money: Miners need to be paid. HUGE amout of electricity need to be spent in order to run all these devices. If block reward dissapeared RIGHT NOW, miners would only rely on transaction fees to run. Most of them would stop mining, because it is no longer profitable. But all those unused hashing hardware might fall in the wrong hand, may be used toward a 51% attach.

I think you are wrong about that.  I'd be surprised if 40% update to a client with a new limit.  I know I wouldn't, would you?

I think the core devs could expand the 21 mio coin limit, if they want. They basically control the Bitcoin Foundation, this forum, alot of mining power, if they update the client >95% would update to this client with new limit.

But it's very unlikely that they would want or do it. Alot of their wealth is based on the 21 mio limit and they are motivated by greed.