3 ms·

Thanks. This is a helpful link. If the majority of good/honest nodes and the Bitcoin developers decide to implement a change, presumably this change will occur.

Thanks. This is a helpful link. If the majority of good/honest nodes and the Bitcoin developers decide to implement a change, presumably this change will occur. My understanding is this happened recently with Taproot for example so one must infer that this is possible. Obviously such changes only impact new blocks but naturally this can still have an impact on the general ecosystem. Here is a hypothetical situation for consideration (please shoot holes in it!). The year is 2105, Bitcoin is the defacto world currency. Everyone is paid in Bitcoin and all transactions are performed in Bitcoin. Democratically elected world governments control the majority hashrate since they have decided that it is too risky to allow private individuals to control the network. A major financial crisis emerges in which prices of goods relative to Bitcoin are on a severe downward trend. Individuals realize that if they simply delay purchases, their own purchasing power will increase - further reducing demand for goods and services thus further decreasing price. Since businesses cannot make a profit in this situation, workers need to be paid less continuing the deflationary cycle. Democratically elected world governments decide that inflation is necessary in Bitcoin in order to avoid an exceedingly long painful and unnecessary economic depression. World governments work with Bitcoin developers to start rewarding miners with 20 Bitcoin per block mined thus devaluing the currency. 99.9999% of citizens of the world agree with this move. After the financial crisis is abated, world governments determine that a 2% inflation rate should be built into the Bitcoin in order to avoid such problems in the future and virtually everyone is happy with this. Is such a scenario impossible?

wmf 5y ago
Basically exchanges and whales determine the outcome of a hard fork. In a "hyperbitcoinized" world there wouldn't really be exchanges and it's not clear who the whales would be, but that scenario is so unlikely that I don't think about it.
- throwaway248329 5y ago
  No, individual users decide the outcome of a hard fork. Coinbase, BitGo, Bitmain all tried to force Bitcoin to use larger blocks because that would've gave them more power, and look where we are.
  - wmf 5y ago
    Nope, the 2X upgrade was derailed by an exchange that decided to list both sides (IIRC it was going to be BTC1 and BTC2) and they were motivated by a (possibly rigged) futures market.
    - throwaway248329 5y ago
      How exactly was it derailed? Creators of 2X stopped the fork because it was clear that majority of users were against it and that miners would be forced to mine it at their expense.
      - wmf 5y ago
        The will of the majority of users was not at all clear to me.
- osigurdson 5y ago
  I suppose that leads back to my original question. What are the names of the people that control Bitcoin? Should we wait until this group does something that is not in the best interest of Bitcoin holders to find out?
  - wmf 5y ago
    It is a problem IMO that Bitcoin has no documented governance process so it's basically "if it prosper, none dare call it treason". As for who the CEOs and whales are, you can Google them.
    - throwaway248329 5y ago
      That's a good thing. Having an established governance process would be an attack vector.
  - landemva 5y ago
    You can look on github for code commits. Those have IDs with the code. Not sure how you would determine how to contact all the full node owners.
throwaway248329 5y ago
Changing the miner subsidy amount would require a hard-fork, so the chain would split in two chains with a shared history, the original with only 21M coins and the new chain without the cap. And once that happens, it would be in everyone's financial interest to get rid of their inflationary coins and sell them for original Bitcoin. So unless all the world governments decide to make it illegal to mine the old chain, it wouldn't work.
- osigurdson 5y ago
  I don't believe that a hard fork necessarily results in a split of the chain. If all miners accept the hard fork then there is no split in the chain - new blocks require miners. My understanding is this has happened before. https://phemex.com/academy/bitcoin-hard-fork-vs-soft-fork https://phemex.com/academy/bitcoin-hard-fork-vs-soft-fork
  - throwaway248329 5y ago
    Yes, but as long as some miners stay on the old chain, it will live. Hard fork also requires the users to switch to that new client, otherwise they won't be able to accept the new blocks from the forked chain.

wmf 5y ago

Basically exchanges and whales determine the outcome of a hard fork. In a "hyperbitcoinized" world there wouldn't really be exchanges and it's not clear who the whales would be, but that scenario is so unlikely that I don't think about it.

throwaway248329 5y ago
No, individual users decide the outcome of a hard fork. Coinbase, BitGo, Bitmain all tried to force Bitcoin to use larger blocks because that would've gave them more power, and look where we are.
- wmf 5y ago
  Nope, the 2X upgrade was derailed by an exchange that decided to list both sides (IIRC it was going to be BTC1 and BTC2) and they were motivated by a (possibly rigged) futures market.
  - throwaway248329 5y ago
    How exactly was it derailed? Creators of 2X stopped the fork because it was clear that majority of users were against it and that miners would be forced to mine it at their expense.
    - wmf 5y ago
      The will of the majority of users was not at all clear to me.
osigurdson 5y ago
I suppose that leads back to my original question. What are the names of the people that control Bitcoin? Should we wait until this group does something that is not in the best interest of Bitcoin holders to find out?
- wmf 5y ago
  It is a problem IMO that Bitcoin has no documented governance process so it's basically "if it prosper, none dare call it treason". As for who the CEOs and whales are, you can Google them.
  - throwaway248329 5y ago
    That's a good thing. Having an established governance process would be an attack vector.
- landemva 5y ago
  You can look on github for code commits. Those have IDs with the code. Not sure how you would determine how to contact all the full node owners.

throwaway248329 5y ago

Changing the miner subsidy amount would require a hard-fork, so the chain would split in two chains with a shared history, the original with only 21M coins and the new chain without the cap. And once that happens, it would be in everyone's financial interest to get rid of their inflationary coins and sell them for original Bitcoin. So unless all the world governments decide to make it illegal to mine the old chain, it wouldn't work.

osigurdson 5y ago
I don't believe that a hard fork necessarily results in a split of the chain. If all miners accept the hard fork then there is no split in the chain - new blocks require miners. My understanding is this has happened before. https://phemex.com/academy/bitcoin-hard-fork-vs-soft-fork https://phemex.com/academy/bitcoin-hard-fork-vs-soft-fork
- throwaway248329 5y ago
  Yes, but as long as some miners stay on the old chain, it will live. Hard fork also requires the users to switch to that new client, otherwise they won't be able to accept the new blocks from the forked chain.