4 ms·

Are there any systems where a majority of users simply can't agree to change the code that is running?

nightpool 4y ago
How would that even work? Nobody can force you to run a piece of code against your will. EDIT: I guess you could rules-lawyer about the meaning of "majority" but like... you don't even need a majority of users to start a fork! Two people is enough to start a fork. There's nothing preventing me from starting a fork of Bitcoin today and mining/trading it among my friends. It's just that normally people feel compelled to go along with what the majority is doing
- bombcar 4y ago
  See the Etherium rollback/fork and the Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash fork for examples. If enough people on the blockchain decide to update their code to do something different, you either fork or move with them.
  - nightpool 4y ago
    I think you're confused, I'm asking how what the GP said (a blockchain where a fork couldn't happen) could ever be possible.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Ah, you'd have to have some form of central authority that "signs" the official "code" which would defeat the point of a blockchain anyway.
    - maxerickson 4y ago
      That's the point. Code isn't law.
Rychard 4y ago
Probably not what you meant, but the US Credit Score is a very opaque system, but I would wager to say that the majority of people would like to see that code changed[1] (or more likely, abolished). Though I suppose we're not "users" of such a system, but are rather "subjected to it" [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_score_in_the_United_States#Criticism_and_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_score_in_the_United_Sta...
aeturnum 4y ago
No - but like...the key feature of blockchain is that you can design a system where you must do that to make a change. If you're running a 'centralized'* (let's say 'administered') system then you can just change the database with your admin credentials. You could swear up and down that you threw away your admin credentials, but you can't prove you destroyed data. Blockchain systems can be used to create systems where you can prove that no entity has admin powers. I am extremely skeptical of how useful that is - but it is unique. * blockchains are centralized; just in a different way
- dd36 4y ago
  How do newsgroups maintain integrity across providers without a coin? Isn’t it like a sum check? That doesn’t work as good? I wish bitcoin were solving a real problem for the amount of energy it uses.
  - aeturnum 4y ago
    I think checksums can be used to verify that particular messages are the same, but ultimately I think there just aren't that many protocols for ensuring that every provider has every message. Some messages could get dropped and the solution is that providers will just check again - there's no protocol level guard against it. Absolute integrity is a lot less important in systems which assume that inexpensive manual overrides will be possible - because you save a ton by simply deciding to build a system that 'only' works 99.9% of the time and intervening in 0.1% of cases. Obviously blockchains don't work 100% of the time but that's the premise for their increased costs.
  - lmm 4y ago
    Newsgroups were run by a secret cabal for a long time. Beyond that the system just doesn't preserve integrity; a given provider can censor some messages and that's generally something you live with or switch to a better provider.
sacrosancty 4y ago
If there's very high interdependence and dependence on a scarce shared resource, they could be locked in. An non-code example is deciding which side of the road to drive on. If 99% of the population chose to change from left to right, the remaining 1% would prevent that from working. The 99% can't just build a parallel road network for themselves because of limited space.
- yardstick 4y ago
  Depends on who instigated the change. The 1% of people being those with the authority to make the change. Samoa changed road direction a while ago. Not everyone was on board, but it happened anyway. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8243110.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8243110.stm
- maxerickson 4y ago
  If 99% of Bitcoin users/hash power switched over to a different set of rules, the 1% wouldn't matter, the 99% would ignore them. They could whinge and cry all they wanted. I'm not sure the analogy even works, but in the case of driving, if 99% decided to switch how the roads were to be used, I assure you that literal resistance would not be tolerated. There might be some incidents, but there wouldn't be very many before the 1% were the ones getting pushed around.

How would that even work? Nobody can force you to run a piece of code against your will. EDIT: I guess you could rules-lawyer about the meaning of "majority" but like... you don't even need a majority of users to start a fork! Two people is enough to start a fork. There's nothing preventing me from starting a fork of Bitcoin today and mining/trading it among my friends. It's just that normally people feel compelled to go along with what the majority is doing

bombcar 4y ago
See the Etherium rollback/fork and the Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash fork for examples. If enough people on the blockchain decide to update their code to do something different, you either fork or move with them.
- nightpool 4y ago
  I think you're confused, I'm asking how what the GP said (a blockchain where a fork couldn't happen) could ever be possible.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Ah, you'd have to have some form of central authority that "signs" the official "code" which would defeat the point of a blockchain anyway.
  - maxerickson 4y ago
    That's the point. Code isn't law.

Rychard 4y ago

Probably not what you meant, but the US Credit Score is a very opaque system, but I would wager to say that the majority of people would like to see that code changed[1] (or more likely, abolished). Though I suppose we're not "users" of such a system, but are rather "subjected to it" [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_score_in_the_United_States#Criticism_and_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_score_in_the_United_Sta...

aeturnum 4y ago

No - but like...the key feature of blockchain is that you can design a system where you must do that to make a change. If you're running a 'centralized'* (let's say 'administered') system then you can just change the database with your admin credentials. You could swear up and down that you threw away your admin credentials, but you can't prove you destroyed data. Blockchain systems can be used to create systems where you can prove that no entity has admin powers. I am extremely skeptical of how useful that is - but it is unique. * blockchains are centralized; just in a different way

dd36 4y ago
How do newsgroups maintain integrity across providers without a coin? Isn’t it like a sum check? That doesn’t work as good? I wish bitcoin were solving a real problem for the amount of energy it uses.
- aeturnum 4y ago
  I think checksums can be used to verify that particular messages are the same, but ultimately I think there just aren't that many protocols for ensuring that every provider has every message. Some messages could get dropped and the solution is that providers will just check again - there's no protocol level guard against it. Absolute integrity is a lot less important in systems which assume that inexpensive manual overrides will be possible - because you save a ton by simply deciding to build a system that 'only' works 99.9% of the time and intervening in 0.1% of cases. Obviously blockchains don't work 100% of the time but that's the premise for their increased costs.
- lmm 4y ago
  Newsgroups were run by a secret cabal for a long time. Beyond that the system just doesn't preserve integrity; a given provider can censor some messages and that's generally something you live with or switch to a better provider.

sacrosancty 4y ago

If there's very high interdependence and dependence on a scarce shared resource, they could be locked in. An non-code example is deciding which side of the road to drive on. If 99% of the population chose to change from left to right, the remaining 1% would prevent that from working. The 99% can't just build a parallel road network for themselves because of limited space.

yardstick 4y ago
Depends on who instigated the change. The 1% of people being those with the authority to make the change. Samoa changed road direction a while ago. Not everyone was on board, but it happened anyway. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8243110.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8243110.stm
maxerickson 4y ago
If 99% of Bitcoin users/hash power switched over to a different set of rules, the 1% wouldn't matter, the 99% would ignore them. They could whinge and cry all they wanted. I'm not sure the analogy even works, but in the case of driving, if 99% decided to switch how the roads were to be used, I assure you that literal resistance would not be tolerated. There might be some incidents, but there wouldn't be very many before the 1% were the ones getting pushed around.