5 ms·

Obviously I can’t change your decision to use this terminology, but ponder this: when the leader is elected every 10 minutes, do they get a choice of what block

Obviously I can’t change your decision to use this terminology, but ponder this: when the leader is elected every 10 minutes, do they get a choice of what block they append to the chain? No they don’t. So was it election of the leader or election of the block? And if it was an election, wouldn’t the result always be the same with largest miner always winning because they have most votes? As I said in a sibling thread, it’s like arguing the earth is flat by proposing a very special metric of space. Feel free of course, I just don’t accept it.

lottin 5y ago
> do they get a choice of what block they append to the chain? No they don’t. Of course, they have a choice. If didn't, miners would serve no purpose. We would just have one block and that would be the block that would be appended. The consensus would be achieved automatically, without any need of guessing secret numbers. > And if it was an election, wouldn’t the result always be the same with largest miner always winning because they have most votes? No, because the miner is elected at random. The crucial point to understand is that their chances of getting elected are proportional to the money they spent. That doesn't mean the largest miner will get elected 100% of the time.
- keymone 5y ago
  > Of course, they have a choice lol, no they don't. a certain hash wins, every ~10 minutes. that hash is calculated from sha(block, nonce), where nonce is the randomized part that miner mutates to get different hashes. once a hash that satisfies the protocol is found - that's it, you can't choose a different block to append to the chain. it is just laughable that i have to explain this level of basics.
  - Jweb_Guru 5y ago
    Okay, and who chooses the block? (Hint: it's the node that wins leader election). Maybe this article will help you understand just how nonessential the fact that the block is part of the SHA actually is: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/nsdi16/nsdi16-paper-eyal.pdf https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/nsdi16/nsdi16.... Please read the whole article, and then come back so we can have a discussion on equal footing.
    - keymone 5y ago
      > Okay, and who chooses the block? well certainly not the winner of the "election", because by the time that "election" starts, the block is already constructed. and i'm not going to read any of your links until you actually start understanding the basics of bitcoin protocol. though your lack of understanding explains perfectly why you fall for scammy bells and whistles of competing bitcoin-wannabes. "bitcoin new generation". lol, give me a break.
      - Jweb_Guru 5y ago
        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 is important for you to understand that this does not matter so you can understand why when the block is chosen does not change the fact that leader election is being performed. Again, I'll ask you, since you keep dodging the question: if the node elected as leader is (according to you) not choosing the block, who is choosing the block? Why are you so obsessed with whether the value was chosen "before" or "after" the election, which is an irrelevant detail of the protocol? If you can't answer these things and won't read the paper, I don't really see any reason to keep talking to you, because all you've done is make the same irrelevant point over and over.
  - lottin 5y ago
    Where do you think the transactions included in the block come from? The miner picks them.
    - keymone 5y ago
      and now the weaseling starts. i asked a very specific question: 1. once the "leader" is "elected" 2. do they have a choice of what block to append? you said they do, which is fundamental lack of understanding of how bitcoin works.
      - lottin 5y ago
        The question that you asked was: > when the leader is elected every 10 minutes, do they get a choice of what block they append to the chain? and the answer is yes, the miner that gets elected chooses which transactions to append to the chain. Do they pick the transactions after getting elected? No, they pick them before getting elected. In fact, it doesn't matter whether they pick the transactions before or after getting elected, because their chances of getting elected are unaffected by which transactions they picked. Therefore, it makes absolutely no difference. The fact that you think it makes a difference tells me you're very confused about the role miners have in the bitcoin network.
        keymone 5y ago
        The answer is no and you’re clueless if you think otherwise. The “leader” has no choice in blocks or transactions after they “win” the “election”.
        UncleEntity 5y ago
        The "leader" has no choice after they win the current round but they do have a choice as to what to include in the winning block before they start hashing. Maybe they act like all the other rational miners and optimize by mining fees. Maybe they include no transactions and only take the miner reward. Maybe they they don't like the Dutch so all their transactions are excluded. It really doesn't matter as all y'all have been arguing over is what to call the person who won the current round.
  - randomNumber7 5y ago
    lol, they don't understand you
losvedir 5y ago
I think you're missing the larger picture of accruing blocks over time, and deciding what is the "canonical" largest chain. A miner can choose which block to build on. At any given moment Bitcoin can have several competing "in progress" forks. This is why most exchanges require... 7, I think?... blocks on top of yours to consider the transaction more or less confirmed. > And if it was an election, wouldn’t the result always be the same with largest miner always winning because they have most votes? Yes, this is a 51% attack in Bitcoin. If you have a majority of votes, you can disregard the current chain, fork from behind, and catch up.
TheMagicHorsey 5y ago
I’ve been reading this thread. I have no idea why these people insist on using the word “leader” when it doesn’t fit. Is there some ideological reason for this?
- Jweb_Guru 5y ago
  There is no "ideological" reason. I don't even own cryptocurrency. It's just a fact that the entire purpose of proof of work is to perform leader election. The defining characteristic of leader election is that only the leader commits new values, and there should only be one leader eventually chosen for a given round; the definition has nothing to do with using some sort of majority vote or anything like that. To see how it differs from "ordinary" consensus, I want you to tell me how a Bitcoin-like system could be used to decide on any value other than either (i) one known in advance by all parties (which doesn't require a consensus protocol at all), or (ii) one chosen by the node that wins the block lottery. This is expanded upon in the peer-reviewed Bitcoin-NG paper that both of you are refusing to read, which breaks down the Bitcoin protocol into distinct parts (which was why I linked it--not because I am proposing that it replace the Bitcoin protocol, but because I thought it would be useful for you to understand how Bitcoin performs leader election already). Specifically, it analyzes the effects of splitting up leader election and block commit parts of the protocol. As it turns out, it has essentially no effect on Bitcoin's security guarantees, which is not surprising--because the fact that block selection and leader election happen at the same time is an implementation detail that doesn't actually matter! Once you realize this detail that you are obsessing over (the block being decided at the same time the leader is) is not important for the protocol, you will also see that the leader election is in fact the critical part.
thinkmassive 5y ago
> when the leader is elected every 10 minutes, do they get a choice of what block they append to the chain? No they don’t. Yes, they do get to choose the block. Transactions to include in the block are (usually) chosen from the mempool, which is unique per node (it’s similar but never exactly the same between any two nodes). Miners can also choose to include transactions that were never publicly broadcasted, and therefore never appeared in another mempool. Typically the transactions with highest fees are chosen, although fees can also be paid (or bumped) outside the mempool. The miner of a block doesn’t get to choose the contents of every transaction, but they do choose which transactions to include when they win a block. It seems like you’re hung up on terms that aren’t commonly used in the context of bitcoin mining, but are valid and are commonly used in the broader context of distributed systems.
- keymone 5y ago
  You’re not paying attention. Does miner have a choice what transactions to include after they win the “election”? Don’t rush, take your time.

lottin 5y ago

> do they get a choice of what block they append to the chain? No they don’t. Of course, they have a choice. If didn't, miners would serve no purpose. We would just have one block and that would be the block that would be appended. The consensus would be achieved automatically, without any need of guessing secret numbers. > And if it was an election, wouldn’t the result always be the same with largest miner always winning because they have most votes? No, because the miner is elected at random. The crucial point to understand is that their chances of getting elected are proportional to the money they spent. That doesn't mean the largest miner will get elected 100% of the time.

keymone 5y ago
> Of course, they have a choice lol, no they don't. a certain hash wins, every ~10 minutes. that hash is calculated from sha(block, nonce), where nonce is the randomized part that miner mutates to get different hashes. once a hash that satisfies the protocol is found - that's it, you can't choose a different block to append to the chain. it is just laughable that i have to explain this level of basics.
- Jweb_Guru 5y ago
  Okay, and who chooses the block? (Hint: it's the node that wins leader election). Maybe this article will help you understand just how nonessential the fact that the block is part of the SHA actually is: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/nsdi16/nsdi16-paper-eyal.pdf https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/nsdi16/nsdi16.... Please read the whole article, and then come back so we can have a discussion on equal footing.
  - keymone 5y ago
    > Okay, and who chooses the block? well certainly not the winner of the "election", because by the time that "election" starts, the block is already constructed. and i'm not going to read any of your links until you actually start understanding the basics of bitcoin protocol. though your lack of understanding explains perfectly why you fall for scammy bells and whistles of competing bitcoin-wannabes. "bitcoin new generation". lol, give me a break.
    - Jweb_Guru 5y ago
      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 is important for you to understand that this does not matter so you can understand why when the block is chosen does not change the fact that leader election is being performed. Again, I'll ask you, since you keep dodging the question: if the node elected as leader is (according to you) not choosing the block, who is choosing the block? Why are you so obsessed with whether the value was chosen "before" or "after" the election, which is an irrelevant detail of the protocol? If you can't answer these things and won't read the paper, I don't really see any reason to keep talking to you, because all you've done is make the same irrelevant point over and over.
- lottin 5y ago
  Where do you think the transactions included in the block come from? The miner picks them.
  - keymone 5y ago
    and now the weaseling starts. i asked a very specific question: 1. once the "leader" is "elected" 2. do they have a choice of what block to append? you said they do, which is fundamental lack of understanding of how bitcoin works.
    - lottin 5y ago
      The question that you asked was: > when the leader is elected every 10 minutes, do they get a choice of what block they append to the chain? and the answer is yes, the miner that gets elected chooses which transactions to append to the chain. Do they pick the transactions after getting elected? No, they pick them before getting elected. In fact, it doesn't matter whether they pick the transactions before or after getting elected, because their chances of getting elected are unaffected by which transactions they picked. Therefore, it makes absolutely no difference. The fact that you think it makes a difference tells me you're very confused about the role miners have in the bitcoin network.
      - keymone 5y ago
        The answer is no and you’re clueless if you think otherwise. The “leader” has no choice in blocks or transactions after they “win” the “election”.
        UncleEntity 5y ago
        The "leader" has no choice after they win the current round but they do have a choice as to what to include in the winning block before they start hashing. Maybe they act like all the other rational miners and optimize by mining fees. Maybe they include no transactions and only take the miner reward. Maybe they they don't like the Dutch so all their transactions are excluded. It really doesn't matter as all y'all have been arguing over is what to call the person who won the current round.
- randomNumber7 5y ago
  lol, they don't understand you

losvedir 5y ago

I think you're missing the larger picture of accruing blocks over time, and deciding what is the "canonical" largest chain. A miner can choose which block to build on. At any given moment Bitcoin can have several competing "in progress" forks. This is why most exchanges require... 7, I think?... blocks on top of yours to consider the transaction more or less confirmed. > And if it was an election, wouldn’t the result always be the same with largest miner always winning because they have most votes? Yes, this is a 51% attack in Bitcoin. If you have a majority of votes, you can disregard the current chain, fork from behind, and catch up.

TheMagicHorsey 5y ago

I’ve been reading this thread. I have no idea why these people insist on using the word “leader” when it doesn’t fit. Is there some ideological reason for this?

Jweb_Guru 5y ago
There is no "ideological" reason. I don't even own cryptocurrency. It's just a fact that the entire purpose of proof of work is to perform leader election. The defining characteristic of leader election is that only the leader commits new values, and there should only be one leader eventually chosen for a given round; the definition has nothing to do with using some sort of majority vote or anything like that. To see how it differs from "ordinary" consensus, I want you to tell me how a Bitcoin-like system could be used to decide on any value other than either (i) one known in advance by all parties (which doesn't require a consensus protocol at all), or (ii) one chosen by the node that wins the block lottery. This is expanded upon in the peer-reviewed Bitcoin-NG paper that both of you are refusing to read, which breaks down the Bitcoin protocol into distinct parts (which was why I linked it--not because I am proposing that it replace the Bitcoin protocol, but because I thought it would be useful for you to understand how Bitcoin performs leader election already). Specifically, it analyzes the effects of splitting up leader election and block commit parts of the protocol. As it turns out, it has essentially no effect on Bitcoin's security guarantees, which is not surprising--because the fact that block selection and leader election happen at the same time is an implementation detail that doesn't actually matter! Once you realize this detail that you are obsessing over (the block being decided at the same time the leader is) is not important for the protocol, you will also see that the leader election is in fact the critical part.

thinkmassive 5y ago

> when the leader is elected every 10 minutes, do they get a choice of what block they append to the chain? No they don’t. Yes, they do get to choose the block. Transactions to include in the block are (usually) chosen from the mempool, which is unique per node (it’s similar but never exactly the same between any two nodes). Miners can also choose to include transactions that were never publicly broadcasted, and therefore never appeared in another mempool. Typically the transactions with highest fees are chosen, although fees can also be paid (or bumped) outside the mempool. The miner of a block doesn’t get to choose the contents of every transaction, but they do choose which transactions to include when they win a block. It seems like you’re hung up on terms that aren’t commonly used in the context of bitcoin mining, but are valid and are commonly used in the broader context of distributed systems.

keymone 5y ago
You’re not paying attention. Does miner have a choice what transactions to include after they win the “election”? Don’t rush, take your time.