3 ms·

> that the developers have very significant control on the blockchain The case for BTC in this regard is no different from ETH. In both cases developers put to

> that the developers have very significant control on the blockchain The case for BTC in this regard is no different from ETH. In both cases developers put together an upgrade, then miners can either upgrade or not.

rawtxapp 6y ago
Except in this case, this is going against presumably 51% of the miners and changes take much longer to implement and activate on Bitcoin (taproot activation for example will be done over a very long period and needs a very high threshold). Going from PoW to PoS in such a small timeframe is pretty aggressive no matter how you look at it. As a user, I really hope it works out without major issues.
- hanniabu 6y ago
  > and changes take much longer to implement and activate on Bitcoin That's a funny way of saying BTC doesn't innovate. > Going from PoW to PoS in such a small timeframe is pretty aggressive no matter how you look at it. It's been the plan for years. I first heard of it in 2017 and if I'm not mistaken I think it was also in the whitepaper. So it's neither coming out of the blue or an aggressive timeframe.
  - rawtxapp 6y ago
    > That's a funny way of saying BTC doesn't innovate. Or another way of saying you can expect some stability (and majority consensus) when there's more than a trillion dollars worth of value at stake. It's been discussed for a longtime, yes, but the expectation is that it would roll out in phases over the next year or two, not rushed out because of a potential 51% attack.
    - hanniabu 6y ago
      You say rushed but it's not rushed at all. It's simply just a priority change.
- DennisP 6y ago
  Bear in mind the PoS network is already running, with 100,000 validators and $6 billion staked, after years of R&D. This last bit is relatively simple.
jude- 6y ago
In Bitcoin decisions are made on the principle of one CPU, one vote. Rules only change with overwhelming hash power. Developers take a back seat. In Ethereum, developers run the show. They decide what gets pushed to miners via the All Core Devs call.
- hanniabu 6y ago
  > In Bitcoin decisions are made on the principle of one CPU, one vote This is how it works in Ethereum as well > They decide what gets pushed to miners via the All Core Devs call. Blockstream does the same, it's literally no different.
  - jude- 6y ago
    > This is how it works in Ethereum as well So is Ethereum not going to PoS if miners say no? > Blockstream does the same, it's literally no different. Every soft fork was voted on by miners. Developers provide the code, but it only activates with miner consent.
    - 015a 6y ago
      You say "miners" like they're a union with a spokesperson. They're not; they're thousands of people spread across the world, with different agendas. Miners who refuse to adopt the new PoS system have the right to not upgrade to it. At that point, the system "forks" (the article calls it a 51% attack, but I think that's a little inflammatory). This literally already happened with Ethereum and Ethereum Classic; Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. It isn't a new situation. The reason why some miners are dissenting this change is, first and obviously, because they disagree with it. So, why not just fork? Because no one talks about Bitcoin Cash; they talk about Bitcoin. They want to stay on PoW because it will return the best revenue for their mining operation, but if they're busy mining a coin that has little value, that also hurts their revenue. In other words, the only way for them to win is to get the community against the change, which is a losing bet because the change is widely supported.
      - 6y ago

rawtxapp 6y ago

Except in this case, this is going against presumably 51% of the miners and changes take much longer to implement and activate on Bitcoin (taproot activation for example will be done over a very long period and needs a very high threshold). Going from PoW to PoS in such a small timeframe is pretty aggressive no matter how you look at it. As a user, I really hope it works out without major issues.

hanniabu 6y ago
> and changes take much longer to implement and activate on Bitcoin That's a funny way of saying BTC doesn't innovate. > Going from PoW to PoS in such a small timeframe is pretty aggressive no matter how you look at it. It's been the plan for years. I first heard of it in 2017 and if I'm not mistaken I think it was also in the whitepaper. So it's neither coming out of the blue or an aggressive timeframe.
- rawtxapp 6y ago
  > That's a funny way of saying BTC doesn't innovate. Or another way of saying you can expect some stability (and majority consensus) when there's more than a trillion dollars worth of value at stake. It's been discussed for a longtime, yes, but the expectation is that it would roll out in phases over the next year or two, not rushed out because of a potential 51% attack.
  - hanniabu 6y ago
    You say rushed but it's not rushed at all. It's simply just a priority change.
DennisP 6y ago
Bear in mind the PoS network is already running, with 100,000 validators and $6 billion staked, after years of R&D. This last bit is relatively simple.

jude- 6y ago

In Bitcoin decisions are made on the principle of one CPU, one vote. Rules only change with overwhelming hash power. Developers take a back seat. In Ethereum, developers run the show. They decide what gets pushed to miners via the All Core Devs call.

hanniabu 6y ago
> In Bitcoin decisions are made on the principle of one CPU, one vote This is how it works in Ethereum as well > They decide what gets pushed to miners via the All Core Devs call. Blockstream does the same, it's literally no different.
- jude- 6y ago
  > This is how it works in Ethereum as well So is Ethereum not going to PoS if miners say no? > Blockstream does the same, it's literally no different. Every soft fork was voted on by miners. Developers provide the code, but it only activates with miner consent.
  - 015a 6y ago
    You say "miners" like they're a union with a spokesperson. They're not; they're thousands of people spread across the world, with different agendas. Miners who refuse to adopt the new PoS system have the right to not upgrade to it. At that point, the system "forks" (the article calls it a 51% attack, but I think that's a little inflammatory). This literally already happened with Ethereum and Ethereum Classic; Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. It isn't a new situation. The reason why some miners are dissenting this change is, first and obviously, because they disagree with it. So, why not just fork? Because no one talks about Bitcoin Cash; they talk about Bitcoin. They want to stay on PoW because it will return the best revenue for their mining operation, but if they're busy mining a coin that has little value, that also hurts their revenue. In other words, the only way for them to win is to get the community against the change, which is a losing bet because the change is widely supported.
    - 6y ago