3 ms·
A properly decentralized project has multiple implementations, and a formal process for changing the consensus model. This requires the equivalent of an RFC (Re
by tromp 4y ago
A properly decentralized project has multiple implementations, and a formal process for changing the consensus model. This requires the equivalent of an RFC (Request for Comments, or Bitcoin Improvement Proposal in case of Bitcoin) to be written, motivating and detailing the changes, followed by months long discussion to see if there is overwhelming support for, and few downsides to, the changes. Meanwhile, the changes need to be implemented on all existing clients with extensive documentation and tests and be exercised on test-nets to see if all goes well. Finally, a supermajority of miners as well as economic nodes (such as exchanges) need to be convinced the changes are for the better, and then an activation can be planned on main-net that could take several more months to lock in first.
Chains where this process can be bypassed or severely shortened don't deserve to be called decentralized.
- dane-pgp 4y ago> a supermajority of miners as well as economic nodes (such as exchanges) Is there a formal way of defining this? Maybe it's possible to at least define "a supermajority X% of miners, weighted by blocks mined in the last Y days" (for values X and Y that have previously reached a consensus), but counting economic nodes in a way that is Sybil-proof and globally consistent, seems like it's just pushing the consensus problem somewhere else.