4 ms·

Could that one not have rules without rulers, if the protocol and incentives are properly structured?

pjc50 7y ago
Only if you never, ever upgrade the software. As soon as you need to make changes, that unavoidably hands control to those doing the changes. (This has become very apparent among all the bitcoin forks; the "default" fork has won every time because hardly anyone can be bothered to pick a specific one and it's far better to be on the majority one)
- me_me_me 7y ago
  Exactly, and you can see the extremes people with go to, in order for them to control and enforce their views ie Bitcoin cash.
  - jkepler 7y ago
    But the Bitcoin Cash devs can't force anyone to use their fork. Users are still free to run the software or not.
    - me_me_me 7y ago
      Yes, but it shows that people will do a lok of shady things in attempt to capture the reins of control. At the moment you have rather educated in crypto people using crypto. You don't have to think hard as to what happens when majority of people have their say on things they have no idea about (appeal to emotion /emotional manipulation).
- jkepler 7y ago
  Except that there have been multiple upgrades on the original Bitcoin chain. The software is on version 0.18. While preserving backwards compatibility, today bitcoin includes Segregated Witness, which separated the constraints on unspent transaction outputs from spending transactions (this also solved the transaction maleability problem). That upgrade alone showed us that changes the majority of network participants accept can be upgraded, but even when a strong consortium of powerful merchants or mining groups tried to force change, no one group could---though folks argued and tried to change it for more than two years. There are multiple stakeholder groups who have to form consensus for upgrades: protocol developers, application devs, network security folks(i.e. miners), full-node users validating transactions, merchants accepting payments, and users choosing wallet software; thus, upgrades are hard but possible when really necessary. Network forks simply show that the entire system is voluntary and non-coersive: if you disagree, you're free to built an alternative with like-minded people. But if the economic activity doesn't follow you, you're left with a not much more than a free software project.
  - garmaine 7y ago
    Nit, but the key point is that it preserves forwards compatibility.

Only if you never, ever upgrade the software. As soon as you need to make changes, that unavoidably hands control to those doing the changes. (This has become very apparent among all the bitcoin forks; the "default" fork has won every time because hardly anyone can be bothered to pick a specific one and it's far better to be on the majority one)

me_me_me 7y ago
Exactly, and you can see the extremes people with go to, in order for them to control and enforce their views ie Bitcoin cash.
- jkepler 7y ago
  But the Bitcoin Cash devs can't force anyone to use their fork. Users are still free to run the software or not.
  - me_me_me 7y ago
    Yes, but it shows that people will do a lok of shady things in attempt to capture the reins of control. At the moment you have rather educated in crypto people using crypto. You don't have to think hard as to what happens when majority of people have their say on things they have no idea about (appeal to emotion /emotional manipulation).
jkepler 7y ago
Except that there have been multiple upgrades on the original Bitcoin chain. The software is on version 0.18. While preserving backwards compatibility, today bitcoin includes Segregated Witness, which separated the constraints on unspent transaction outputs from spending transactions (this also solved the transaction maleability problem). That upgrade alone showed us that changes the majority of network participants accept can be upgraded, but even when a strong consortium of powerful merchants or mining groups tried to force change, no one group could---though folks argued and tried to change it for more than two years. There are multiple stakeholder groups who have to form consensus for upgrades: protocol developers, application devs, network security folks(i.e. miners), full-node users validating transactions, merchants accepting payments, and users choosing wallet software; thus, upgrades are hard but possible when really necessary. Network forks simply show that the entire system is voluntary and non-coersive: if you disagree, you're free to built an alternative with like-minded people. But if the economic activity doesn't follow you, you're left with a not much more than a free software project.
- garmaine 7y ago
  Nit, but the key point is that it preserves forwards compatibility.