4 ms·

Not correct. The software update that goes to the uses but if miners dont mine for the hard fork, then the user cant use it. Its a technical reality that they c

by noxer 5y ago

Not correct. The software update that goes to the uses but if miners dont mine for the hard fork, then the user cant use it. Its a technical reality that they could update anyway and at least some miners would mine for them but that would just be causing a chain fork and 2 different chains. The miners have the power to decide where they mine. And user have the power to decide on which chain they operate on. They both have power with their choice. But the choice for user is limited to chains that actually exist. For for now only ETH and ETC exists but if there is demand for more chains because a significant portion of people disagree with the progress then more chains can fork off. This however requires miners who are willing to mine on a forked chain. The power is split but the constant "fights" between the different parties (miners/users) is the reasons these fist-gen (PoW/PoS) blockchains can not be efficient. There is and forever will be a misaligned interest between the two parties which drives up prices and slows down progress. Software's auto-update feature is completely irrelevant to consensus. It obviously does not define who has the power at all. To update is always voluntary. Software devs dont technically have any power they have influence.

Taek 5y ago
Any chain can exist with a single miner on it, and anyone can be that miner. Users do not need the consent of miners to execute a hardfork and migrate to a new chain. Miners do not control or determine hard forks. This has been demonstrated empirically numerous times in crypto history, most notably the moment that >80% of the hashrate openly supported a hardfork that subsequently failed because it did not have user support. Your node software decides what fork you run on. If someone can push an update to your software without your consent, they can choose to put you on a fork and you may not even realize it happened. This is why most full node software (including bitcoin and Ethereum) does not support automatic updates.
- noxer 5y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28142675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28142675
shawnz 5y ago
> The software update that goes to the uses but if miners dont mine for the hard fork, then the user cant use it. ... The miners have the power to decide where they mine. This is based on the assumption that miners would rather choose to abandon their business as a matter of principle than mine on the most profitable chain, and also somehow convince any future, unaffiliated prospective miners to also do the same. How could they ever achieve that? Miners don't control where the financial incentives are.
- noxer 5y ago
  You should probably read the the whole post not just one part and then assume something I never said. The power is split between miners and user. A majority from both parties are required to determine where the network goes the rest are somewhat forced to follow. If no such majority can be found the network can fork and both chains can be profitable for miners. I never said miners are in control, I disagreed with the parent who said users are in control - big difference.
  - shawnz 5y ago
    What I am saying is that only users can determine which chain is profitable for miners. Miners only have a choice in the sense that they can choose to sacrifice profits on principle, which is not really a choice in the same sense as the kind of choice that users have.
    - noxer 5y ago
      No, this is wrong. And the reverse is also wrong. A user can chose by principle too and scarifies cost if he has to overpay to attract miners to that chain. Does that mean its "not really a choice"? No, its exactly what choice means. Also even at zero user if the token has value mining can be profitable. But anyway these edge-cases are irrelevant. There is and will never be a situation where all miners and all user chose a different chain. Just the fact that some miners are users at the same time makes it impossible. The only thing important is that power is shared between the 2 groups and its a constant fight because of different interests. Even without miners when its fully PoS there will still be misaligned interests between the parties (users, hardware operators, stakes etc.) Its an inherent flaw in the system because it relies on incentives which one party wants to maximize.

by noxer 5y ago

Taek 5y ago

Any chain can exist with a single miner on it, and anyone can be that miner. Users do not need the consent of miners to execute a hardfork and migrate to a new chain. Miners do not control or determine hard forks. This has been demonstrated empirically numerous times in crypto history, most notably the moment that >80% of the hashrate openly supported a hardfork that subsequently failed because it did not have user support. Your node software decides what fork you run on. If someone can push an update to your software without your consent, they can choose to put you on a fork and you may not even realize it happened. This is why most full node software (including bitcoin and Ethereum) does not support automatic updates.

noxer 5y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28142675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28142675

shawnz 5y ago

> The software update that goes to the uses but if miners dont mine for the hard fork, then the user cant use it. ... The miners have the power to decide where they mine. This is based on the assumption that miners would rather choose to abandon their business as a matter of principle than mine on the most profitable chain, and also somehow convince any future, unaffiliated prospective miners to also do the same. How could they ever achieve that? Miners don't control where the financial incentives are.

noxer 5y ago
You should probably read the the whole post not just one part and then assume something I never said. The power is split between miners and user. A majority from both parties are required to determine where the network goes the rest are somewhat forced to follow. If no such majority can be found the network can fork and both chains can be profitable for miners. I never said miners are in control, I disagreed with the parent who said users are in control - big difference.
- shawnz 5y ago
  What I am saying is that only users can determine which chain is profitable for miners. Miners only have a choice in the sense that they can choose to sacrifice profits on principle, which is not really a choice in the same sense as the kind of choice that users have.
  - noxer 5y ago
    No, this is wrong. And the reverse is also wrong. A user can chose by principle too and scarifies cost if he has to overpay to attract miners to that chain. Does that mean its "not really a choice"? No, its exactly what choice means. Also even at zero user if the token has value mining can be profitable. But anyway these edge-cases are irrelevant. There is and will never be a situation where all miners and all user chose a different chain. Just the fact that some miners are users at the same time makes it impossible. The only thing important is that power is shared between the 2 groups and its a constant fight because of different interests. Even without miners when its fully PoS there will still be misaligned interests between the parties (users, hardware operators, stakes etc.) Its an inherent flaw in the system because it relies on incentives which one party wants to maximize.