3 ms·

“What makes [blockchains] unique, however, is that they allow developers to write code that makes strong commitments about how that code will behave in the futu

“What makes [blockchains] unique, however, is that they allow developers to write code that makes strong commitments about how that code will behave in the future. It is that property that makes it possible for Bitcoin to guarantee that there will only ever be 21 million bitcoins.“ This is either a really bad misunderstanding of how Bitcoin works or it’s just a blatant lie. The parameters of the Bitcoin mining algorithm can be adjusted if the mining community chooses to. There is nothing about the technology that mandates “how that code will behave in the future”.

rudiger 5y ago
The mining community cannot change how Bitcoin works. Even if 100% of miners were to change their validation logic to accept more than 21 million bitcoins, none of the nodes running the Bitcoin software will accept the change. Bitcoin is governed by the nodes running the software, not by the source code.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  You might say that the definition of and value of bitcoins are determined only by collective understanding, governed by the participants in the system, and that it is backed by faith in that collective governance, and will fall apart if that faith falters, or if the collective illusion underlying bitcoin collapses. Is that starting to sound like another currency you've heard about?
- FabHK 5y ago
  Can you expand on that, and correct my thinking here? Say, 95% of hash power (so, the top 5-10 of mining pools) change their validation logic, but, yay, none of the non-mining nodes (and the good 5% miners) accept the change. Then we effectively have a hard fork, no? The bad miners can trivially add more nodes, which will accept the change. The good nodes won't. Good miners keep mining. But suppose the bad miners go rogue just after a difficulty adjustment. So, then the good nodes (with 5% hash power) can emit a block around only every 3 hours (200 minutes), and it will take around 2x20=40 weeks to adjust the difficulty (unless, of course... they conspire to change that. Why not?). The bad miners, meanwhile, can keep mining with their rogue version, and occasionally divert a small fraction of their mining power to mess with the good nodes (double spend, make a "longer chain" with no transactions inside, or whatever). The defence I see against that scenario is not the code or the crypto or the nodes, but the fact that they'd probably kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Or maybe not: maybe both chains together are more valuable than the old one alone! Maybe they should give it a try.

rudiger 5y ago

The mining community cannot change how Bitcoin works. Even if 100% of miners were to change their validation logic to accept more than 21 million bitcoins, none of the nodes running the Bitcoin software will accept the change. Bitcoin is governed by the nodes running the software, not by the source code.

jeffbee 5y ago
You might say that the definition of and value of bitcoins are determined only by collective understanding, governed by the participants in the system, and that it is backed by faith in that collective governance, and will fall apart if that faith falters, or if the collective illusion underlying bitcoin collapses. Is that starting to sound like another currency you've heard about?
FabHK 5y ago
Can you expand on that, and correct my thinking here? Say, 95% of hash power (so, the top 5-10 of mining pools) change their validation logic, but, yay, none of the non-mining nodes (and the good 5% miners) accept the change. Then we effectively have a hard fork, no? The bad miners can trivially add more nodes, which will accept the change. The good nodes won't. Good miners keep mining. But suppose the bad miners go rogue just after a difficulty adjustment. So, then the good nodes (with 5% hash power) can emit a block around only every 3 hours (200 minutes), and it will take around 2x20=40 weeks to adjust the difficulty (unless, of course... they conspire to change that. Why not?). The bad miners, meanwhile, can keep mining with their rogue version, and occasionally divert a small fraction of their mining power to mess with the good nodes (double spend, make a "longer chain" with no transactions inside, or whatever). The defence I see against that scenario is not the code or the crypto or the nodes, but the fact that they'd probably kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Or maybe not: maybe both chains together are more valuable than the old one alone! Maybe they should give it a try.