4 ms·

Bitcoin literally uses voting to on which branch to use as it's consensus tie break mechanism. It depends on the value of the network incentivizing people to vo

by zaphar 3y ago

Bitcoin literally uses voting to on which branch to use as it's consensus tie break mechanism. It depends on the value of the network incentivizing people to vote in a way that keeps the network trustworthy. I don't know if you can get more overtly political than that.

rcme 3y ago
Is voting inherently political? Are leader election algorithms political?
- iudqnolq 3y ago
  If the voters are humans (or computers instructed by humans, which simplifies to the same thing) then obviously yes.
- hudon 3y ago
  If voting is not political, you'll have to present your definition of "political", as you're using an abnormal definition.
wmf 3y ago
It isn't voting in the usual sense because preferences don't come into it. Nodes follow the "longest" chain and if there's a tie they use a simple heuristic to break it.
- hudon 3y ago
  This is not correct, nodes follow the longest valid chain. The word valid is key, and therein lie the politics.
  - wmf 3y ago
    Sure, you can fork but IMO that's akin to secession or revolution, not voting.
    - hudon 3y ago
      Well, which chain is the fork? Who's rules are you using as the arbiter? What kind of node you run and what it outputs has a direct effect on what is perceived as being "Bitcoin", as opposed to "a fork of Bitcoin". Humans are the final arbiter of which one is the fork, whether it's by the nodes they run or by the code they decide to merge into the core repo (sometimes after much very political deliberation).
olalonde 3y ago
> Merriam-Webster: The meaning of political is of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government. Also, there is no such "voting on which branch to use", I'm not sure what you are referring to or if you're mixed up with another cryptocurrency. In Bitcoin, the valid branch is the one with the most proof of work. There is no concept of voting.
- hudon 3y ago
  You vote for consensus rules with your node. A chain with more proof of work, but that is violating the rules that nodes have formed consensus on, is ignored.
  - olalonde 3y ago
    > You vote for consensus rules with your node. That's incorrect. Non-mining nodes are passive, they do not cast votes. > A chain with more proof of work, but that is violating the rules that nodes have formed consensus on, is ignored. That is correct. Non-mining nodes are programmed to reject invalid blocks... or they can accept them if they want. It's of no importance because what they do has no influence on the rest of the network.
    - hudon 3y ago
      > That's incorrect. Non-mining nodes are passive, they do not cast votes. Well you're right in that it doesn't look like casting a ballot in a box, but in practice they very much do "vote" in the sense that they decide on what rules are valid or not. This is what prevents miners from colluding and changing the rules of Bitcoin, the nodes would reject their chain. This is also what prevents developers from introducing a backdoor into the network by releasing malicious code. Node operators can vote to reject a change by not upgrading their nodes. Inversely, if there is a rule change and the nodes of the network go along with the rule change (by their decision on what to reject or accept), then this is akin to a motion passing. The validity of blocks is not some ethereal thing, and neither are Bitcoin rules written on stone tablets by God. These things are the result of very human deliberation and code commits (by humans).

by zaphar 3y ago

rcme 3y ago

Is voting inherently political? Are leader election algorithms political?

iudqnolq 3y ago
If the voters are humans (or computers instructed by humans, which simplifies to the same thing) then obviously yes.
hudon 3y ago
If voting is not political, you'll have to present your definition of "political", as you're using an abnormal definition.

wmf 3y ago

It isn't voting in the usual sense because preferences don't come into it. Nodes follow the "longest" chain and if there's a tie they use a simple heuristic to break it.

hudon 3y ago
This is not correct, nodes follow the longest valid chain. The word valid is key, and therein lie the politics.
- wmf 3y ago
  Sure, you can fork but IMO that's akin to secession or revolution, not voting.
  - hudon 3y ago
    Well, which chain is the fork? Who's rules are you using as the arbiter? What kind of node you run and what it outputs has a direct effect on what is perceived as being "Bitcoin", as opposed to "a fork of Bitcoin". Humans are the final arbiter of which one is the fork, whether it's by the nodes they run or by the code they decide to merge into the core repo (sometimes after much very political deliberation).

olalonde 3y ago

> Merriam-Webster: The meaning of political is of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government. Also, there is no such "voting on which branch to use", I'm not sure what you are referring to or if you're mixed up with another cryptocurrency. In Bitcoin, the valid branch is the one with the most proof of work. There is no concept of voting.

hudon 3y ago
You vote for consensus rules with your node. A chain with more proof of work, but that is violating the rules that nodes have formed consensus on, is ignored.
- olalonde 3y ago
  > You vote for consensus rules with your node. That's incorrect. Non-mining nodes are passive, they do not cast votes. > A chain with more proof of work, but that is violating the rules that nodes have formed consensus on, is ignored. That is correct. Non-mining nodes are programmed to reject invalid blocks... or they can accept them if they want. It's of no importance because what they do has no influence on the rest of the network.
  - hudon 3y ago
    > That's incorrect. Non-mining nodes are passive, they do not cast votes. Well you're right in that it doesn't look like casting a ballot in a box, but in practice they very much do "vote" in the sense that they decide on what rules are valid or not. This is what prevents miners from colluding and changing the rules of Bitcoin, the nodes would reject their chain. This is also what prevents developers from introducing a backdoor into the network by releasing malicious code. Node operators can vote to reject a change by not upgrading their nodes. Inversely, if there is a rule change and the nodes of the network go along with the rule change (by their decision on what to reject or accept), then this is akin to a motion passing. The validity of blocks is not some ethereal thing, and neither are Bitcoin rules written on stone tablets by God. These things are the result of very human deliberation and code commits (by humans).