3 ms·

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 mi

by 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
  > Which policy are we referring to? * BIP 141 version bits and BIP 148 as a voting mechanism: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#deployment https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawi... and https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawi... * core developer votes: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support * posturing and maneuvering: https://cointelegraph.com/news/samourai-wallet-intends-to-run-bip-148-until-segwit-is-fully-activated https://cointelegraph.com/news/samourai-wallet-intends-to-ru... > It evolves in a decentralized and organic manner, devoid of any formal political process or voting. Just because the voting mechanisms are generally informal if we exclude the formal BIP voting process, that doesn't make them not voting mechanisms. I'll grant you that the politics of Bitcoin can be chaotic and hard to follow (this is intentional), but in times of crisis, the obfuscated leadership structure usually emerges from the darkness. Another example is what happened in the 2013 crisis, where light was cast on where the power in Bitcoin truly lied: https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/07/28/analyzing-the-2013-bitcoin-fork-centralized-decision-making-saved-the-day/ https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/07/28/analyzing-the-2013-... . In this example, a couple devs took charge and had the miners abandon the longest chain. If all these things are not politics to you, in that they are not specifically about governance, power, or voting, again we'll have to disagree. I am definitely not saying "everything human is political" so again we can drop that straw man.

by hudon 3y ago

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
> Which policy are we referring to? * BIP 141 version bits and BIP 148 as a voting mechanism: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#deployment https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawi... and https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawi... * core developer votes: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support * posturing and maneuvering: https://cointelegraph.com/news/samourai-wallet-intends-to-run-bip-148-until-segwit-is-fully-activated https://cointelegraph.com/news/samourai-wallet-intends-to-ru... > It evolves in a decentralized and organic manner, devoid of any formal political process or voting. Just because the voting mechanisms are generally informal if we exclude the formal BIP voting process, that doesn't make them not voting mechanisms. I'll grant you that the politics of Bitcoin can be chaotic and hard to follow (this is intentional), but in times of crisis, the obfuscated leadership structure usually emerges from the darkness. Another example is what happened in the 2013 crisis, where light was cast on where the power in Bitcoin truly lied: https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/07/28/analyzing-the-2013-bitcoin-fork-centralized-decision-making-saved-the-day/ https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/07/28/analyzing-the-2013-... . In this example, a couple devs took charge and had the miners abandon the longest chain. If all these things are not politics to you, in that they are not specifically about governance, power, or voting, again we'll have to disagree. I am definitely not saying "everything human is political" so again we can drop that straw man.