3 ms·

> 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 whic

> 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).
    - olalonde 3y ago
      Well, now we've reached the "every decision is a vote" argument. Is HTML political because browsers reject malformed HTML? When my browser refuses to render a page, does it "vote"? When I am watching a movie, am I voting against TV? > very much do "vote" in the sense that they decide on what rules are valid or not. Yes, they decide for themselves. Their decision is irrelevant and ignored by the network, at protocol level. It doesn't prevent anyone from running modified versions of Bitcoin (in fact, there are tons of those running as we speak). Nor does it prevent miners from mining invalid blocks. > The validity of blocks is not some ethereal thing, and neither are Bitcoin rules written on a tablet by God. They are, more or less. I think the last time a hard fork occurred was over 10 years ago for a small bug fix. Like I was saying, your argument is basically that "everything is political". You are using "vote" in the most abstract and metaphorical sense. Yes, people "vote" for Bitcoin by using it. Just like I'm "voting" for HN by commenting here. That's just not how people typically think of "voting" and "politics". That "vote" has very little in common with the traditional "vote" that is counted and used to reach a decision.
      - hudon 3y ago
        We'll have to disagree. My observation is that nodes have, historically (see 2017), been used as a way to decide which miners were mining "Bitcoin" and which miners were mining "some other thing". The whole point made by Core developers was that "proof of work does not equal consensus if your policy is invalid, and what is valid is what is accepted by all these nodes". As such and unlike your TV and browser, nodes have been used to influence policy, so I reject your "everything is political" straw man.
        olalonde 3y ago
        There are many forks of Bitcoin, like Bitcoin Cash or BSV. When core developers suggest "what is valid is what is accepted by all these nodes," they're referring to the fact that nodes ultimately determine which cryptocurrency they acknowledge as valid for transactions. This could range from Bitcoin, its various forks, to even Ethereum and beyond. It's not a part of the protocol itself but a kind of very metaphorical vote, akin to how you "vote" for Canadian dollars by accepting them as a form of payment. > nodes have been used to influence policy Which policy are we referring to? There is no centralized authority here. Each participant has the autonomy to decide which blockchain to support. If a Bitcoin fork appeals to you, you're free to use it. The only semblance of "politics" that emerges is the debate over semantics, the "true Bitcoin," but this isn't dictated by the protocol. It evolves in a decentralized and organic manner, devoid of any formal political process or voting. It bears very little resemblance with typical notions of voting and politics. It's only political in the broadest sense of the term, when starting from the axiom "anything involving humans is political". Which dilutes the significance of the term 'political' - a trend that I personally find very irritating, hence my initial snarky comment.

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).
  - olalonde 3y ago
    Well, now we've reached the "every decision is a vote" argument. Is HTML political because browsers reject malformed HTML? When my browser refuses to render a page, does it "vote"? When I am watching a movie, am I voting against TV? > very much do "vote" in the sense that they decide on what rules are valid or not. Yes, they decide for themselves. Their decision is irrelevant and ignored by the network, at protocol level. It doesn't prevent anyone from running modified versions of Bitcoin (in fact, there are tons of those running as we speak). Nor does it prevent miners from mining invalid blocks. > The validity of blocks is not some ethereal thing, and neither are Bitcoin rules written on a tablet by God. They are, more or less. I think the last time a hard fork occurred was over 10 years ago for a small bug fix. Like I was saying, your argument is basically that "everything is political". You are using "vote" in the most abstract and metaphorical sense. Yes, people "vote" for Bitcoin by using it. Just like I'm "voting" for HN by commenting here. That's just not how people typically think of "voting" and "politics". That "vote" has very little in common with the traditional "vote" that is counted and used to reach a decision.
    - hudon 3y ago
      We'll have to disagree. My observation is that nodes have, historically (see 2017), been used as a way to decide which miners were mining "Bitcoin" and which miners were mining "some other thing". The whole point made by Core developers was that "proof of work does not equal consensus if your policy is invalid, and what is valid is what is accepted by all these nodes". As such and unlike your TV and browser, nodes have been used to influence policy, so I reject your "everything is political" straw man.
      - olalonde 3y ago
        There are many forks of Bitcoin, like Bitcoin Cash or BSV. When core developers suggest "what is valid is what is accepted by all these nodes," they're referring to the fact that nodes ultimately determine which cryptocurrency they acknowledge as valid for transactions. This could range from Bitcoin, its various forks, to even Ethereum and beyond. It's not a part of the protocol itself but a kind of very metaphorical vote, akin to how you "vote" for Canadian dollars by accepting them as a form of payment. > nodes have been used to influence policy Which policy are we referring to? There is no centralized authority here. Each participant has the autonomy to decide which blockchain to support. If a Bitcoin fork appeals to you, you're free to use it. The only semblance of "politics" that emerges is the debate over semantics, the "true Bitcoin," but this isn't dictated by the protocol. It evolves in a decentralized and organic manner, devoid of any formal political process or voting. It bears very little resemblance with typical notions of voting and politics. It's only political in the broadest sense of the term, when starting from the axiom "anything involving humans is political". Which dilutes the significance of the term 'political' - a trend that I personally find very irritating, hence my initial snarky comment.