5 ms·

> 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 y

> 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?
- keymone 5y ago
  There is no leader election. You trying to insist on this terminology is like trying to explain that the earth is really flat by proposing some very special space metric. All miners “vote” by hashing and one of them wins. They don’t win because somebody voted for them, they win because they happened to find a satisfactory hash. The chance to win that hash faster than other miners is proportional to hashrate. The hash is determined by the block of transactions entirely, so once you win the race, you don’t get to propose anything other than that one predetermined block. Which transactions go into a block is decided before any mining for that transaction happens. Just read, please.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    > Just read, please. You're coming off worse in this argument because you seem to realize on some level they're just using different (possibly wrong) terms in their accurate description of the mechanisms, but then you keep making snide remarks that imply they don't understand the mechanisms.
    - keymone 5y ago
      i in fact do insist on them not understanding the mechanism. trying to force incoherent terminology is just the largest red flag signifying that lack of understanding. snide remarks is my bad, i definitely lost my patience, it's hard to argue with somebody saying that sky is pink because they've changed what pink means.
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        Red flag, sure. But when they say things like "The peer-reviewed paper to which I linked, which I am not proposing as a replacement for Bitcoin, explains (to those who are willing to read it) why the block being chosen before or after the leader election does not matter when it comes to the security and consensus properties of Bitcoin." it seems very clear to me that they do understand the mechanism, despite that red flag. I think your analogy to flat earth was better. Because sure, treating the earth as flat isn't correct, but it's often a perfectly good approximation, and arguing about whether a big field is flat or not is a giant waste of time. Don't completely dismiss someone because they use those terms. "Leader" or not, it's basically equivalent. And the process of letting miners input yes/no values for whether they support a proposal into their block, averaged over thousands of blocks, gives you the same result as "voting". So talk about whether those results are useful.
        keymone 5y ago
        There are variants of PoS where stakers can delegate their "votes" to other stakers and there are variants where validators compete for "leader" timeslots. These words carry certain meaning and none of it is useful or applicable to bitcoin. As with flat earth analogy, I agree that it's possible to have this perspective, i just think it's harmful for conveying the idea of bitcoin correctly.
- TheMagicHorsey 5y ago
  You are really stretching, man. The term “leader” does not really apply in this mechanism.
- cloakandswagger 5y ago
  You're confusing the discussion by trying to force the "leader" terminology. That term does not appear in the BTC whitepaper and the protocol's approach to consensus is different than a traditional leader elected system. There is no "voting" and no "leader" except in the most abstract sense and I'm not sure why you're so determined to use those terms.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

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?

keymone 5y ago
There is no leader election. You trying to insist on this terminology is like trying to explain that the earth is really flat by proposing some very special space metric. All miners “vote” by hashing and one of them wins. They don’t win because somebody voted for them, they win because they happened to find a satisfactory hash. The chance to win that hash faster than other miners is proportional to hashrate. The hash is determined by the block of transactions entirely, so once you win the race, you don’t get to propose anything other than that one predetermined block. Which transactions go into a block is decided before any mining for that transaction happens. Just read, please.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > Just read, please. You're coming off worse in this argument because you seem to realize on some level they're just using different (possibly wrong) terms in their accurate description of the mechanisms, but then you keep making snide remarks that imply they don't understand the mechanisms.
  - keymone 5y ago
    i in fact do insist on them not understanding the mechanism. trying to force incoherent terminology is just the largest red flag signifying that lack of understanding. snide remarks is my bad, i definitely lost my patience, it's hard to argue with somebody saying that sky is pink because they've changed what pink means.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      Red flag, sure. But when they say things like "The peer-reviewed paper to which I linked, which I am not proposing as a replacement for Bitcoin, explains (to those who are willing to read it) why the block being chosen before or after the leader election does not matter when it comes to the security and consensus properties of Bitcoin." it seems very clear to me that they do understand the mechanism, despite that red flag. I think your analogy to flat earth was better. Because sure, treating the earth as flat isn't correct, but it's often a perfectly good approximation, and arguing about whether a big field is flat or not is a giant waste of time. Don't completely dismiss someone because they use those terms. "Leader" or not, it's basically equivalent. And the process of letting miners input yes/no values for whether they support a proposal into their block, averaged over thousands of blocks, gives you the same result as "voting". So talk about whether those results are useful.
      - keymone 5y ago
        There are variants of PoS where stakers can delegate their "votes" to other stakers and there are variants where validators compete for "leader" timeslots. These words carry certain meaning and none of it is useful or applicable to bitcoin. As with flat earth analogy, I agree that it's possible to have this perspective, i just think it's harmful for conveying the idea of bitcoin correctly.
TheMagicHorsey 5y ago
You are really stretching, man. The term “leader” does not really apply in this mechanism.
cloakandswagger 5y ago
You're confusing the discussion by trying to force the "leader" terminology. That term does not appear in the BTC whitepaper and the protocol's approach to consensus is different than a traditional leader elected system. There is no "voting" and no "leader" except in the most abstract sense and I'm not sure why you're so determined to use those terms.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]