8 ms·

I don't think this author really understands how Bitcoin development and upgrades work. There's Bitcoin the software, of which there can be any number of imple

I don't think this author really understands how Bitcoin development and upgrades work. There's Bitcoin the software, of which there can be any number of implementations, and then there's Bitcoin the network, of which there is only one. Miners and full nodes on the network have full control over which implementation/version of the Bitcoin software they choose to run. So sure, in theory people could be corrupted into for example changing the code that controls the monetary policy in the reference client, but you still need to get miners and full nodes to run your new version of the software. This is what makes it so hard to make any changes to Bitcoin, and forms the stability that many feel is one of its key strengths.

ptudan 5y ago
Even if miners and devs do try to screw people over, it's always possible to fork from a certain blockheight.
- hellajeff 5y ago
  Yep. This is why you don't keep your coins on an exchange. If there's another fork like BCH or ETC you might be screwed.
  - viraptor 5y ago
    What do you mean? On every exchange I'm aware of, you ended up with both BTC and BCH accounts. Did some of them completely ignore the fork?
    - hellajeff 5y ago
      BCH and ETC aren't the only forks. Take a look at cheapETH. I bet the exchange you're on didn't give you any of those!
- logifail 5y ago
  > it's always possible to fork from a certain blockheight So looking back at the 2016 hard fork of Ethereum after the DAO thing[0], is it a feature that "the community"[1] can choose to hard fork to revert transactions that are "bad"[2], or is it a bug? [0] https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/07/20/hard-fork-completed/ https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/07/20/hard-fork-completed/ [1] I'm not sure who defines this [2] I'm also not sure who defines this
yazaddaruvala 5y ago
And given the large number of ASICs involved, large updates[0] of BTC "software" would require a hardware refresh, increasing adoption hesitancy. [0] Where large is defined as something the ASIC designer did not predict needed to be a flexible part of the system.
- wmf 5y ago
  Basically no protocol changes, especially the ones people are worried about, require ASIC changes.
jayd16 5y ago
If you imagined a world where a small cabal of power bankers could control monetary policy, why is it hard to imagine a small cabal of powerful bitcoin miners could do the same? The tech encourages large miners in terms of hardware and infrastructure investment. There's a race to the bottom for compute and power consumption that small miners can't really compete with. In this way the system could conceivably move towards that small powerful group.
- gruez 5y ago
  because bitcoin miners can't dictate monetary policy (they can only dictate transaction ordering/inclusion), but governments can do both.
  - jayd16 5y ago
    How can they not dictate monetary policy? They could conceivably cause inflation by increasing mining rewards or perhaps deflation through coin destruction.
    - jude- 5y ago
      Miners don't decide what software other people run, that's why. If a miner tries to mint themselves more Bitcoin than they are due, then their block will be rejected by the network.
      - jayd16 5y ago
        The scenario in question is when a small group has control of the network through consolidated hash power.
        jude- 5y ago
        > Miners don't decide what software other people run
        gruez 5y ago
vgel 5y ago
For reference, a quick Google search says there are ~1 million bitcoin miners. However, presumably there's a pareto-type distribution where some some small% of miners are responsible for the majority of the hashrate, so I'd be curious how many miners would need to agree to dictate the direction of Bitcoin. This is also probably complicated by the existence of huge mining pools and relatively apolitical miners who would go along with whatever client upgrades the pool said was required to keep mining with that pool -- although, OTOH, switching pools is not particularly difficult. Something that's interesting to me is that forking the blockchain creates money out of thin air, if people accept both sides of the fork -- I've seen people who recovered old wallets make sure to collect the extra bit from Bitcoin Cash along with the main windfall of regular Bitcoin. If blockchains really do take over finance, there's interesting implications for inflation control / monetary policy there, I think.
rozab 5y ago
>Bitcoin the network, of which there is only one 4 by my count. There's also Cash, SV and Gold.
- yourabstraction 5y ago
  But those are no longer Bitcoin, they are "Bitcoin Cash", "Bitcoin Satoshi's Vision", "Bitcoin Gold", etc. There is only one Bitcoin with the BTC ticker.
leventov 5y ago
Of course miners would not oppose (usually) what developers propose because they have highly aligned and interlocked incentives. This is an open system, but it's also very undemocratic, and it's design and direction are determined by the financial incentives of the beneficiaries and the developers.

ptudan 5y ago

Even if miners and devs do try to screw people over, it's always possible to fork from a certain blockheight.

hellajeff 5y ago
Yep. This is why you don't keep your coins on an exchange. If there's another fork like BCH or ETC you might be screwed.
- viraptor 5y ago
  What do you mean? On every exchange I'm aware of, you ended up with both BTC and BCH accounts. Did some of them completely ignore the fork?
  - hellajeff 5y ago
    BCH and ETC aren't the only forks. Take a look at cheapETH. I bet the exchange you're on didn't give you any of those!
logifail 5y ago
> it's always possible to fork from a certain blockheight So looking back at the 2016 hard fork of Ethereum after the DAO thing[0], is it a feature that "the community"[1] can choose to hard fork to revert transactions that are "bad"[2], or is it a bug? [0] https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/07/20/hard-fork-completed/ https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/07/20/hard-fork-completed/ [1] I'm not sure who defines this [2] I'm also not sure who defines this

yazaddaruvala 5y ago

And given the large number of ASICs involved, large updates[0] of BTC "software" would require a hardware refresh, increasing adoption hesitancy. [0] Where large is defined as something the ASIC designer did not predict needed to be a flexible part of the system.

wmf 5y ago
Basically no protocol changes, especially the ones people are worried about, require ASIC changes.

jayd16 5y ago

If you imagined a world where a small cabal of power bankers could control monetary policy, why is it hard to imagine a small cabal of powerful bitcoin miners could do the same? The tech encourages large miners in terms of hardware and infrastructure investment. There's a race to the bottom for compute and power consumption that small miners can't really compete with. In this way the system could conceivably move towards that small powerful group.

gruez 5y ago
because bitcoin miners can't dictate monetary policy (they can only dictate transaction ordering/inclusion), but governments can do both.
- jayd16 5y ago
  How can they not dictate monetary policy? They could conceivably cause inflation by increasing mining rewards or perhaps deflation through coin destruction.
  - jude- 5y ago
    Miners don't decide what software other people run, that's why. If a miner tries to mint themselves more Bitcoin than they are due, then their block will be rejected by the network.
    - jayd16 5y ago
      The scenario in question is when a small group has control of the network through consolidated hash power.
      - jude- 5y ago
        > Miners don't decide what software other people run
      - gruez 5y ago

vgel 5y ago

For reference, a quick Google search says there are ~1 million bitcoin miners. However, presumably there's a pareto-type distribution where some some small% of miners are responsible for the majority of the hashrate, so I'd be curious how many miners would need to agree to dictate the direction of Bitcoin. This is also probably complicated by the existence of huge mining pools and relatively apolitical miners who would go along with whatever client upgrades the pool said was required to keep mining with that pool -- although, OTOH, switching pools is not particularly difficult. Something that's interesting to me is that forking the blockchain creates money out of thin air, if people accept both sides of the fork -- I've seen people who recovered old wallets make sure to collect the extra bit from Bitcoin Cash along with the main windfall of regular Bitcoin. If blockchains really do take over finance, there's interesting implications for inflation control / monetary policy there, I think.

rozab 5y ago

>Bitcoin the network, of which there is only one 4 by my count. There's also Cash, SV and Gold.

yourabstraction 5y ago
But those are no longer Bitcoin, they are "Bitcoin Cash", "Bitcoin Satoshi's Vision", "Bitcoin Gold", etc. There is only one Bitcoin with the BTC ticker.

leventov 5y ago

Of course miners would not oppose (usually) what developers propose because they have highly aligned and interlocked incentives. This is an open system, but it's also very undemocratic, and it's design and direction are determined by the financial incentives of the beneficiaries and the developers.