dontbelieveyou

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by dontbelieveyou 11y ago

   He stated PoW was _essentially_ one-CPU-one-vote. It's clear that the intent is to mean hashrate, or CPU power as he phrases it multiple times in the same paper. > it's not an election, it's more like a random lottery or s
2. 2.▲
   by dontbelieveyou 11y ago

   > it's obvious that Proof-of-Work has not been used to decide consensus protocol parameters Every "soft-fork" to date has used PoW to activate new consensus rules by requiring block version super-majority.
3. 3.▲
   by dontbelieveyou 11y ago

   You made the claim that under "Nakamoto consensus" the consensus parameters are not up for a vote. A correction seemed warranted. > Block size is not a parameter you can force on upgraded nodes by soft-fork. Isn't this wha
4. 4.▲
   by dontbelieveyou 11y ago

   The upgrades are triggered by a super-majority of blocks of a certain version. This version maps to a possible new consensus rule. Block creation is a product of computational work. Therefore there is a precedent for CPUs/ASICs voting
5. 5.▲
   by dontbelieveyou 11y ago

   https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/be9a9a3d2253ceccf123...
6. 6.▲
   by dontbelieveyou 11y ago

   > The nature of Nakamoto consensus is such that consensus parameters are not up to vote "The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making. If the majority were based on one-IP-addre
7. 7.▲
   by dontbelieveyou 11y ago

   Response: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16...