4 ms·

> switch the hashing algorithm OH boy now this is interesting -- to an outsider like me, explain who would decide this? Some central committee? The source-code

by dualogy 14y ago

> switch the hashing algorithm OH boy now this is interesting -- to an outsider like me, explain who would decide this? Some central committee? The source-code "custodian"? Will BTC fork at that point so every holder can "vote with their (pardon) dollar" but would also need to bet on everyone else's choice?

polarix 14y ago
So it would be a combination of the coders, the miners, and the community. Yes, this would definitely require a hard fork.
nightpool 14y ago
Changes to the Bitcoin protocol can be ratified by a majority of miners, in the same "longest blockchain" method.
- deepblueocean 14y ago
  This is a common misconception, I think. If you try to model the protocol economically, it's pretty clear that it's a majority of currency holders (what the core developers call an "economic majority"), not a majority of miners that matters in determining whether a protocol change is valid. Exercise for the reader: determine whether these sets are different in a meaningful way.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    You can model all you want, the majority of miners determines what is the next valid blockchain. Even if they hold 0 currency, and even if there were no more bitcoins to be mined that would still be true.
  - dragonwriter 14y ago
    > This is a common misconception, I think. If you try to model the protocol economically, it's pretty clear that it's a majority of currency holders (what the core developers call an "economic majority"), not a majority of miners that matters in determining whether a protocol change is valid. Actually, its neither, if you really think about it. Currency users (in exchange) are more important than either miners or holders (with the caveat that you need some number > 0 of miners to validate exchanges) to whether a protocol change has economic effect, but once some group adopts a protocol change, what you have is a fork into two separate currencies until a consensus is achieved. Passive currency holders have little driving force in this; currency users are the main driving force, because wherever its being used is where it will have value. Miners have some force because without some of them, the system collapses. And among currency users, the ones that matter the most are the ones that accept bitcoin for goods and services, not the ones that spend it. (In the "steady state" those should be approximately the same, but as long as mining is still producing coins you can have miners/spenders that aren't accepters, and even in the steady state you could have people who inherit hoards and slowly deplete them as users that aren't accepting.)
  - nightpool 14y ago
    No, I mean in a purely technical sense, the majority of miners are the ones who validate blockchains and the ones who have the power to change the protocol.

by dualogy 14y ago

polarix 14y ago

So it would be a combination of the coders, the miners, and the community. Yes, this would definitely require a hard fork.

nightpool 14y ago

Changes to the Bitcoin protocol can be ratified by a majority of miners, in the same "longest blockchain" method.

deepblueocean 14y ago
This is a common misconception, I think. If you try to model the protocol economically, it's pretty clear that it's a majority of currency holders (what the core developers call an "economic majority"), not a majority of miners that matters in determining whether a protocol change is valid. Exercise for the reader: determine whether these sets are different in a meaningful way.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  You can model all you want, the majority of miners determines what is the next valid blockchain. Even if they hold 0 currency, and even if there were no more bitcoins to be mined that would still be true.
- dragonwriter 14y ago
  > This is a common misconception, I think. If you try to model the protocol economically, it's pretty clear that it's a majority of currency holders (what the core developers call an "economic majority"), not a majority of miners that matters in determining whether a protocol change is valid. Actually, its neither, if you really think about it. Currency users (in exchange) are more important than either miners or holders (with the caveat that you need some number > 0 of miners to validate exchanges) to whether a protocol change has economic effect, but once some group adopts a protocol change, what you have is a fork into two separate currencies until a consensus is achieved. Passive currency holders have little driving force in this; currency users are the main driving force, because wherever its being used is where it will have value. Miners have some force because without some of them, the system collapses. And among currency users, the ones that matter the most are the ones that accept bitcoin for goods and services, not the ones that spend it. (In the "steady state" those should be approximately the same, but as long as mining is still producing coins you can have miners/spenders that aren't accepters, and even in the steady state you could have people who inherit hoards and slowly deplete them as users that aren't accepting.)
- nightpool 14y ago
  No, I mean in a purely technical sense, the majority of miners are the ones who validate blockchains and the ones who have the power to change the protocol.