3 ms·

Right now the Bitcoin network consists of ~59,000 nodes (according to the article), running various versions of the Bitcoin software, implementing the same prot

Right now the Bitcoin network consists of ~59,000 nodes (according to the article), running various versions of the Bitcoin software, implementing the same protocol. If the biggest mining pools were to launch ~100,000 nodes of their own, initially running the exact same software as the other 59k nodes (until they get some reputation) and then modifying the software to allow larger blocks, that they would start sending to the network as well, what would prevent them from effectively changing what Bitcoin is, leaving the current nodes as a legacy fork? Especially if they were doing this together with the Bitcoin devs? Edit: more realistically, there are far fewer popular nodes, so the miners would have to create a much smaller number of nodes to achieve this effect.

samatman 4y ago
What you would then have is 100,000 nodes running one piece of software, and 59k which are doing exactly what they were doing, and in your scenario, the 100k chain also has a higher hash rate. What happens next is a social phenomenon. No one knows. But which chain is original is perfectly clear: it's the the 59k chain, which will still be mining blocks, and it all comes down to who wants to use which one more. But it is emphatically not the case that a majority of validators can force a minority of validators to choose a new protocol. It's nothing like mining.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  > But it is emphatically not the case that a majority of validators can force a minority of validators to choose a new protocol. It's nothing like mining. Define "force". Because to me - if you are on a chain that has no future (as in the fork has more resources, better hash rate, better social support) then while you can continue to use the original, the odds that it holds any value is basically zero. Same is true in the inverse - creating a fork and then expecting to be able to move any significant value off the original chain, when the original chain holds better social support and more resources, is usually folly. Take bitcoin cash - which is a great example of this. They split in 2017 and began trading at ~240 USD to bitcoins ~2700 USD. So they started with the assumption that their fork had roughly 1/10 of the value of bitcoin. Today they trade at 119 USD, to bitcoins 21170 USD (and this is after the HUGE drop over the last month): Roughly 1/200th the price. Further - I strongly suspect that the reason BCH is still worth anything at all is that we're well into a crypto bubble - there are FAR too many completely worthless coins floating around that serve absolutely no purpose and still trade at ridiculous nominal USD values. The fact that a usable chain forked from BTC for genuine technical reasons (and a social disagreement over segwit) drops so much value is a BAD sign for that group of original folks on the 59k chain. They can certainly keep mining away on that chain, and if the goal is to still facilitate exchange only in that original chain, they're fine. The second they need to get off that chain and on to something else (whether it's another coin or USD) then they're probably fucked - their chain won't have held value, because value is a social construct, not a number on a chain.
  - hnthrow1010 4y ago
    >there are FAR too many completely worthless coins floating around that serve absolutely no purpose and still trade at ridiculous nominal USD values Correction: No cryptocoins have any value or serve any purpose, besides gambling and fraud. It's scams and wash trading all the way down. I have still yet to see a single valid use for blockchains that actually requires this inbuilt mechanism, where the participants pump the value of some token that serves as payment access to the chain. The whole point of any of them using a blockchain is apparently to take something that serves no purpose and trade it at ridiculous values.
    - horsawlarway 4y ago
      I mean - I mostly agree (I'm fairly clear about my distaste for the current crypto market in many of my comments). That said - there is a floor value for a single coin that captures the dark market space. The original use-case for crypto is still there: There are folks who want to exchange stored value for black market goods, in a scope where government regulation is already assumed to be absent because the goods being exchanged are forbidden items. This is basically what bitcoin was originally. It kept a fairly stable price point around the single dollar mark for use on the silk road ~2010/2011. The problem is that folks started noticing that any time the media talked about it, the price would spike. And that started the whole rollercoaster of speculation that I find absolutely immoral and greedy, that ruined the whole thing. So basically - amend your comment to "besides gambling and fraud and dark market exchange" and I'd agree.
    - kevinak 4y ago
      This is just your opinion, and wow is it a privileged take. Of course there is value in being able to trade with whoever you want, regardless of jurisdiction. Just because YOU do not see the value doesn't mean it's not there.
      - hnthrow1010 4y ago
        >being able to trade with whoever you want, regardless of jurisdiction That has absolutely nothing to do with blockchains at all. Blockchains do not enable that, they have never enabled it. You can indeed build a service that does that with blockchains, but you can also build it without them. Black markets existed for a very long time before bitcoin was created. If you're suggesting there is value in having totally unregulated unrestricted trade, then no, I would still have to say I don't see value in that. There is actually negative value in allowing people to trade illegal weapons, or trafficked humans, or counterfeit products, or contract murders, or tainted animal products that infect humanity with a plague, and so on... you get the picture. These things are actively destructive to a functioning society and market. It's even more of a privileged take to try and suggest that these things don't exist or won't happen if everyone can just trade whatever they want without any restrictions whatsoever. Edit: I'm thinking about this a bit, and it's really insulting to be told I have a privileged take when in the past several years myself and my family members and friends have been actively harmed by ransomware and crypto scams. It's not nice to kick someone when they're down. In my case, the people evading jurisdictions were doing it entirely to harm me. I'm really not seeing how I'm supposed to be the privileged one.

samatman 4y ago

What you would then have is 100,000 nodes running one piece of software, and 59k which are doing exactly what they were doing, and in your scenario, the 100k chain also has a higher hash rate. What happens next is a social phenomenon. No one knows. But which chain is original is perfectly clear: it's the the 59k chain, which will still be mining blocks, and it all comes down to who wants to use which one more. But it is emphatically not the case that a majority of validators can force a minority of validators to choose a new protocol. It's nothing like mining.

horsawlarway 4y ago
> But it is emphatically not the case that a majority of validators can force a minority of validators to choose a new protocol. It's nothing like mining. Define "force". Because to me - if you are on a chain that has no future (as in the fork has more resources, better hash rate, better social support) then while you can continue to use the original, the odds that it holds any value is basically zero. Same is true in the inverse - creating a fork and then expecting to be able to move any significant value off the original chain, when the original chain holds better social support and more resources, is usually folly. Take bitcoin cash - which is a great example of this. They split in 2017 and began trading at ~240 USD to bitcoins ~2700 USD. So they started with the assumption that their fork had roughly 1/10 of the value of bitcoin. Today they trade at 119 USD, to bitcoins 21170 USD (and this is after the HUGE drop over the last month): Roughly 1/200th the price. Further - I strongly suspect that the reason BCH is still worth anything at all is that we're well into a crypto bubble - there are FAR too many completely worthless coins floating around that serve absolutely no purpose and still trade at ridiculous nominal USD values. The fact that a usable chain forked from BTC for genuine technical reasons (and a social disagreement over segwit) drops so much value is a BAD sign for that group of original folks on the 59k chain. They can certainly keep mining away on that chain, and if the goal is to still facilitate exchange only in that original chain, they're fine. The second they need to get off that chain and on to something else (whether it's another coin or USD) then they're probably fucked - their chain won't have held value, because value is a social construct, not a number on a chain.
- hnthrow1010 4y ago
  >there are FAR too many completely worthless coins floating around that serve absolutely no purpose and still trade at ridiculous nominal USD values Correction: No cryptocoins have any value or serve any purpose, besides gambling and fraud. It's scams and wash trading all the way down. I have still yet to see a single valid use for blockchains that actually requires this inbuilt mechanism, where the participants pump the value of some token that serves as payment access to the chain. The whole point of any of them using a blockchain is apparently to take something that serves no purpose and trade it at ridiculous values.
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    I mean - I mostly agree (I'm fairly clear about my distaste for the current crypto market in many of my comments). That said - there is a floor value for a single coin that captures the dark market space. The original use-case for crypto is still there: There are folks who want to exchange stored value for black market goods, in a scope where government regulation is already assumed to be absent because the goods being exchanged are forbidden items. This is basically what bitcoin was originally. It kept a fairly stable price point around the single dollar mark for use on the silk road ~2010/2011. The problem is that folks started noticing that any time the media talked about it, the price would spike. And that started the whole rollercoaster of speculation that I find absolutely immoral and greedy, that ruined the whole thing. So basically - amend your comment to "besides gambling and fraud and dark market exchange" and I'd agree.
  - kevinak 4y ago
    This is just your opinion, and wow is it a privileged take. Of course there is value in being able to trade with whoever you want, regardless of jurisdiction. Just because YOU do not see the value doesn't mean it's not there.
    - hnthrow1010 4y ago
      >being able to trade with whoever you want, regardless of jurisdiction That has absolutely nothing to do with blockchains at all. Blockchains do not enable that, they have never enabled it. You can indeed build a service that does that with blockchains, but you can also build it without them. Black markets existed for a very long time before bitcoin was created. If you're suggesting there is value in having totally unregulated unrestricted trade, then no, I would still have to say I don't see value in that. There is actually negative value in allowing people to trade illegal weapons, or trafficked humans, or counterfeit products, or contract murders, or tainted animal products that infect humanity with a plague, and so on... you get the picture. These things are actively destructive to a functioning society and market. It's even more of a privileged take to try and suggest that these things don't exist or won't happen if everyone can just trade whatever they want without any restrictions whatsoever. Edit: I'm thinking about this a bit, and it's really insulting to be told I have a privileged take when in the past several years myself and my family members and friends have been actively harmed by ransomware and crypto scams. It's not nice to kick someone when they're down. In my case, the people evading jurisdictions were doing it entirely to harm me. I'm really not seeing how I'm supposed to be the privileged one.