6 ms·

Nonsense. Mining gives you zero votes. Miners don’t control the protocol. Governance is not determined by hashrate. This is just another major flaw that all PoS

Nonsense. Mining gives you zero votes. Miners don’t control the protocol. Governance is not determined by hashrate. This is just another major flaw that all PoS shitcoins have.

lottin 5y ago
No one is talking about governance. The term "consensus" refers to the decision about which transactions to append to the ledger, and the decision is to go with whatever set of transactions the miner that has spent the most money has chosen. It has nothing to do with governance issues.
- keymone 5y ago
  then if you're not talking about governance, you're still wrong. there's no voting, only if you insist on re-defining what words mean, at which point i won't be interested in continuing the discussion.
  - Jweb_Guru 5y ago
    Of course there is voting. Who do you think decides which transactions go in the chain, and in what order? The miner who wins leader election during this round (in Bitcoin anyway) does, and the rest of the nodes decide whether to accept its vote. The other nodes can also choose to reject this vote for a while, as long as after seeing it they don't accept a chain with less hashpower, and still follow the protocol (more or less). The leader can even opt to put no transactions in the current block, something that has actually happened on many occasions: https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/67928/bitcoin-miners-are-mining-fewer-empty-blocks-in-2020-and-it-may-not-all-because-of-chance https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/67928/bitcoin-miners-are.... Obviously, the leader was making a decision here, there were not actually zero transactions to process :)
    - keymone 5y ago
      You have zero clue how bitcoin works. No, there is no voting and there is no leader election. Miners construct blocks with transactions and if they manage to find a signature - that block is appended to the chain. If somebody does it faster - they append their block. Please at least get the basics before you start arguing with people.
      - Jweb_Guru 5y ago
        What, exactly, do you think the purpose of computing a SHA prefix is? It's to perform distributed, decentralized leader election. The leader who wins has the privilege of proposing the next block. "If somebody does it faster" is the voting aspect--nodes vote on who they think did it faster, and it is quite possible that they disagree (which can only be resolved by another round of leader election, since the next leader can choose which block to continue from). In the event that there's a longest chain, of course, nodes will go with the longest chain as a tiebreaker scenario. I know far more about Bitcoin than I ever wanted to, believe me. You really should not be making these kinds of ad hominem arguments when you don't understand terms like "consensus" or "leader election."
        keymone 5y ago
        > The leader who wins has the privilege of proposing the next block. No, the hash that you win with, deterministically points to the only possible block that you can “propose”. Your understanding is completely backwards. You seriously don’t know how bitcoin works.
        Jweb_Guru 5y ago
        Whether leader election happens at the same time as the block is proposed or not is completely irrelevant to the nature of the problem from a distributed systems perspective. The point is that in each round, the leader both wins the election, and proposes the next block. There are other variants of proof of work in which the leader is allowed to continue generating new blocks for a period of time and (AFAIK) these inherit all of Bitcoin's security properties. Here is my question to you: if the node that wins the election (and the ones that accept its mined block, of course) is not the one voting on which transactions get to go into the chain, rather than be stuck in the mempool somewhere, who is? Do you genuinely think there is no decision being made there?

Nonsense. Mining gives you zero votes. Miners don’t control the protocol. Governance is not determined by hashrate. This is just another major flaw that all PoS shitcoins have.

lottin 5y ago

No one is talking about governance. The term "consensus" refers to the decision about which transactions to append to the ledger, and the decision is to go with whatever set of transactions the miner that has spent the most money has chosen. It has nothing to do with governance issues.

keymone 5y ago
then if you're not talking about governance, you're still wrong. there's no voting, only if you insist on re-defining what words mean, at which point i won't be interested in continuing the discussion.
- Jweb_Guru 5y ago
  Of course there is voting. Who do you think decides which transactions go in the chain, and in what order? The miner who wins leader election during this round (in Bitcoin anyway) does, and the rest of the nodes decide whether to accept its vote. The other nodes can also choose to reject this vote for a while, as long as after seeing it they don't accept a chain with less hashpower, and still follow the protocol (more or less). The leader can even opt to put no transactions in the current block, something that has actually happened on many occasions: https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/67928/bitcoin-miners-are-mining-fewer-empty-blocks-in-2020-and-it-may-not-all-because-of-chance https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/67928/bitcoin-miners-are.... Obviously, the leader was making a decision here, there were not actually zero transactions to process :)
  - keymone 5y ago
    You have zero clue how bitcoin works. No, there is no voting and there is no leader election. Miners construct blocks with transactions and if they manage to find a signature - that block is appended to the chain. If somebody does it faster - they append their block. Please at least get the basics before you start arguing with people.
    - Jweb_Guru 5y ago
      What, exactly, do you think the purpose of computing a SHA prefix is? It's to perform distributed, decentralized leader election. The leader who wins has the privilege of proposing the next block. "If somebody does it faster" is the voting aspect--nodes vote on who they think did it faster, and it is quite possible that they disagree (which can only be resolved by another round of leader election, since the next leader can choose which block to continue from). In the event that there's a longest chain, of course, nodes will go with the longest chain as a tiebreaker scenario. I know far more about Bitcoin than I ever wanted to, believe me. You really should not be making these kinds of ad hominem arguments when you don't understand terms like "consensus" or "leader election."
      - keymone 5y ago
        > The leader who wins has the privilege of proposing the next block. No, the hash that you win with, deterministically points to the only possible block that you can “propose”. Your understanding is completely backwards. You seriously don’t know how bitcoin works.
        Jweb_Guru 5y ago
        Whether leader election happens at the same time as the block is proposed or not is completely irrelevant to the nature of the problem from a distributed systems perspective. The point is that in each round, the leader both wins the election, and proposes the next block. There are other variants of proof of work in which the leader is allowed to continue generating new blocks for a period of time and (AFAIK) these inherit all of Bitcoin's security properties. Here is my question to you: if the node that wins the election (and the ones that accept its mined block, of course) is not the one voting on which transactions get to go into the chain, rather than be stuck in the mempool somewhere, who is? Do you genuinely think there is no decision being made there?