4 ms·

Pushing code to a repo doesn't mean it's used in prod. It's vulnerable to takeover by a massive single group (though v unlikely and this would ruin the value),

Pushing code to a repo doesn't mean it's used in prod. It's vulnerable to takeover by a massive single group (though v unlikely and this would ruin the value), or small co-op of the largest miners, but it's vulnerable to that in every sense. So it doesn't really matter who can push code to what repo. It only matters who can organise the majority of computational power. I'm not saying it's not vulnerable, but I am saying that investing in taking over btc in order to enrich yourself will by its nature backfire, and that it's not really vulnerable to code change in any way like a centralised system.

hudon 6y ago
The truth now though is that those who can “organize the majority of the computational power” are the same as those who can push to Bitcoin Core. One must only look at recent forks to see how this power grab happened.
gruez 6y ago
>So it doesn't really matter who can push code to what repo. It only matters who can organise the majority of computational power. No, the economic majority[1] also matters. If the miners decided to hardfork bitcoin and double their mining rewards, and the non-mining users did not support this change, their fork would fail because nobody would accept their coins. This is exactly what happened to the segwit2x fork[2], which was arguably less contentious than doubling mining rewards. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority [2] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/SegWit2x https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/SegWit2x
- theelous3 6y ago
  Yes, this is what I meant as backfire. Even if all of the miners made a change, if it doesn't align with the public perception, the value will vanish. The economic majority is basically tied directly to this. It's not only the holders of btc that decide the value. The more it aligns with what the public wants from a parallel currency, the larger the want, and the larger the economic majority. If the miners disalign with the hodlers, it dies. If the miners and hodlers conspire, it still dies.
akritrime 6y ago
I guess the piece of the puzzle that I am missing is how does the change go from repo to prod. Do the miners need to pull the latest code from GitHub?
- im3w1l 6y ago
  Arguable more important than what the miners run is what the exchanges run.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  Part of the answer to that question involves (Ctrl-F) "Reproducible builds" and "Verified reproduction": https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/
  - akritrime 6y ago
    So essentially, the onus of upgrading is on the person running the node. Which I guess is the more intuitive solution. But then what happens if someone doesn't upgrade, will they be just shut off from the network till they are on the latest version?
    - 3np 6y ago
      It depends what the change consists of. In blockchain, we tend to talk about "hard forks" vs "soft forks" when it comes to protocol changes. In a hard fork[0], blocks produced by the newer version will not be accepted as valid by the older version (e.g. increase of block sizes, changes in rewards or additions of new opcodes). This will result in a split of the blockchain, where old and new nodes operate on two concurrent diverging chains. You can think of it as a git fork. A hard fork essentially requires all nodes to upgrade. Hard forks are generally activated by first adding the functionality without activating it but signalling for compatibility, only actually enabling the protocol change once a subset of nodes have signalled support. In a soft fork[1], blocks produced by the older version can be deemed invalid by the newer version - otherwise the two are compatible. This means that users don't strictly need to upgrade to participate, only miners do. So TL;DR, if BTC Core developers released a hard fork, it would only go into effect once it reached majority support among miners. In practice, users and other stakeholders (most notably exchanges) also have an important practical voice in which chain is deemed the canonical one, in case of a split. [0]: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hard-fork.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hard-fork.asp [1]: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/soft-fork.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/soft-fork.asp

hudon 6y ago

The truth now though is that those who can “organize the majority of the computational power” are the same as those who can push to Bitcoin Core. One must only look at recent forks to see how this power grab happened.

gruez 6y ago

>So it doesn't really matter who can push code to what repo. It only matters who can organise the majority of computational power. No, the economic majority[1] also matters. If the miners decided to hardfork bitcoin and double their mining rewards, and the non-mining users did not support this change, their fork would fail because nobody would accept their coins. This is exactly what happened to the segwit2x fork[2], which was arguably less contentious than doubling mining rewards. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority [2] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/SegWit2x https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/SegWit2x

theelous3 6y ago
Yes, this is what I meant as backfire. Even if all of the miners made a change, if it doesn't align with the public perception, the value will vanish. The economic majority is basically tied directly to this. It's not only the holders of btc that decide the value. The more it aligns with what the public wants from a parallel currency, the larger the want, and the larger the economic majority. If the miners disalign with the hodlers, it dies. If the miners and hodlers conspire, it still dies.

akritrime 6y ago

I guess the piece of the puzzle that I am missing is how does the change go from repo to prod. Do the miners need to pull the latest code from GitHub?

im3w1l 6y ago
Arguable more important than what the miners run is what the exchanges run.
dane-pgp 6y ago
Part of the answer to that question involves (Ctrl-F) "Reproducible builds" and "Verified reproduction": https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/
- akritrime 6y ago
  So essentially, the onus of upgrading is on the person running the node. Which I guess is the more intuitive solution. But then what happens if someone doesn't upgrade, will they be just shut off from the network till they are on the latest version?
  - 3np 6y ago
    It depends what the change consists of. In blockchain, we tend to talk about "hard forks" vs "soft forks" when it comes to protocol changes. In a hard fork[0], blocks produced by the newer version will not be accepted as valid by the older version (e.g. increase of block sizes, changes in rewards or additions of new opcodes). This will result in a split of the blockchain, where old and new nodes operate on two concurrent diverging chains. You can think of it as a git fork. A hard fork essentially requires all nodes to upgrade. Hard forks are generally activated by first adding the functionality without activating it but signalling for compatibility, only actually enabling the protocol change once a subset of nodes have signalled support. In a soft fork[1], blocks produced by the older version can be deemed invalid by the newer version - otherwise the two are compatible. This means that users don't strictly need to upgrade to participate, only miners do. So TL;DR, if BTC Core developers released a hard fork, it would only go into effect once it reached majority support among miners. In practice, users and other stakeholders (most notably exchanges) also have an important practical voice in which chain is deemed the canonical one, in case of a split. [0]: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hard-fork.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hard-fork.asp [1]: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/soft-fork.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/soft-fork.asp