4 ms·

> Also, those "mysterious coders" mean nothing if the users don't run their code. Over 98% of nodes run Bitcoin Core right now [0] > It was the users who used

by hggh 2y ago

> Also, those "mysterious coders" mean nothing if the users don't run their code. Over 98% of nodes run Bitcoin Core right now [0] > It was the users who used a User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) in 2017 to push through the SegWit update. SegWit was a Miner Activated Soft Fork (MASF) [1] [0]: https://coin.dance/nodes/share/gif https://coin.dance/nodes/share/gif [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SegWit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SegWit

rjeli 2y ago
I’ve always thought it was strange that btc community encourages only running core, rather than having several implementations to make consensus more robust
- kdragon 2y ago
  It's not that strange. People tend to use what is popular. There are several implementations of core across various languages, not including custom forks of core.
- gruez 2y ago
  Wouldn't having a handful of alternate implementations running suffice in making "consensus more robust"? If there's some bug in core, all it takes is one alternate implementation to catch it. At a more practical level, there's a strong incentive to go along with whatever bugs are present in core, either as a miner or a user (ie. someone making transactions). If there's a consensus disagreement and you're in the minority, then it's basically becomes a hardfork and your side would have a fraction of the hashrate. This isn't too bad if you're just transacting, but if you're a miner this is catastrophic because all your blocks are wasted, because your side of the fork has no chance of being the longest chain, due it it having minority of the hash power.
- kylebenzle 2y ago
  It's because Blockstream is corrupt.
- hggh 2y ago
  Satoshi Nakamoto said this about other implementations: "I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint." [0] I can see the dangers, but multiple implementations looks healthy to me. [0]: https://www.bitcoin.com/satoshi-archive/forum/bitcoin-forum/122/ https://www.bitcoin.com/satoshi-archive/forum/bitcoin-forum/...
kylebenzle 2y ago
BTC trolls like to lie and say the non-mining nodes helped with their segwit fork.
- hggh 2y ago
  Exactly, and they also think they are helping to protect the network, but alas: https://medium.com/@olivierjanss/why-non-mining-full-nodes-are-a-terrible-idea-ad3c49f7a7b6 https://medium.com/@olivierjanss/why-non-mining-full-nodes-a...

by hggh 2y ago

rjeli 2y ago

I’ve always thought it was strange that btc community encourages only running core, rather than having several implementations to make consensus more robust

kdragon 2y ago
It's not that strange. People tend to use what is popular. There are several implementations of core across various languages, not including custom forks of core.
gruez 2y ago
Wouldn't having a handful of alternate implementations running suffice in making "consensus more robust"? If there's some bug in core, all it takes is one alternate implementation to catch it. At a more practical level, there's a strong incentive to go along with whatever bugs are present in core, either as a miner or a user (ie. someone making transactions). If there's a consensus disagreement and you're in the minority, then it's basically becomes a hardfork and your side would have a fraction of the hashrate. This isn't too bad if you're just transacting, but if you're a miner this is catastrophic because all your blocks are wasted, because your side of the fork has no chance of being the longest chain, due it it having minority of the hash power.
kylebenzle 2y ago
It's because Blockstream is corrupt.
hggh 2y ago
Satoshi Nakamoto said this about other implementations: "I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint." [0] I can see the dangers, but multiple implementations looks healthy to me. [0]: https://www.bitcoin.com/satoshi-archive/forum/bitcoin-forum/122/ https://www.bitcoin.com/satoshi-archive/forum/bitcoin-forum/...

kylebenzle 2y ago

BTC trolls like to lie and say the non-mining nodes helped with their segwit fork.

hggh 2y ago
Exactly, and they also think they are helping to protect the network, but alas: https://medium.com/@olivierjanss/why-non-mining-full-nodes-are-a-terrible-idea-ad3c49f7a7b6 https://medium.com/@olivierjanss/why-non-mining-full-nodes-a...