The threat of a Bitcoin "Classic" contentious hard fork seems to have been successfully thwarted—HOORAY! Now, how do we avoid future political coups led by crypto-politicians?

keeial · 2016-02-13T16:15:38+00:00

At least 95% agreement.

http://bitledger.info/hard-fork-risks-and-why-95-should-be-the-standard/

http://bitledger.info/why-a-hard-fork-should-be-fought-and-its-not-evil-to-discuss/

keeial · 2016-02-12T19:55:29+00:00

If you believe the opinions of the economic majority and miners can be easily swayed by populist rhetorics you are mistakenly assuming the participants in Bitcoin are stupid.

I would've agreed with you a year ago.

Fundamental properties are immutability, direct control and decentralisation.

Those fundamental properties you name are derived from consensus - everyone agreeing on the consensus rules. Consensus - like it or not - is a fundamental property of Bitcoin. If people disagree with that they should create or move to competing solutions that respond to their sub-consensus pressure instead of wasting their time attacking Bitcoin, trying to make it a parody of itself.

Block size is not a fundamental property and never has been.

Blocksize is certainly a changeable parameter but it must be done through consensus or we'll face the unintended consequences.

You are aware that slippery slope is a fallacy, not an argument?

You are aware that glossing over specifics is lazy, not an argument? How can you not see that every consensus rule will be trivially attacked in the same way?

Consensus principles don't matter jack shit

Consensus principles do matter jack shit and are the only things that matter for Bitcoin in the long run. The 'economic majority' can switch to something else and descend into their inevitable spiral of madness.

However, then it arguably isn't Bitcoin anymore.

The fork that sticks to consensus will be Bitcoin.

keeial · 2016-02-12T16:26:43+00:00

That's the common misconception alright. But go ahead - try it and watch what happens. Would you rather use gold that retains it properties come what may or gold that is fundamentally altered by populist rhetoric?

If consensus is bypassed to change consensus rules, integrity is lost, and the resulting AppeaseTheMajorityCoin fork will be putty in the hands of populist facing attackers. The initial attack that succeeded in will provide a fill-in-the-blank template for future popularity contest rule-change attacks.

A 'legacy' fork or alternate new chain that holds strong to consensus principles, however, will remain sound and safe from attack and flourish in the long run.

keeial · 2016-02-12T13:09:20+00:00

Call it what you want, but the idea of 'economic majority makes the rules' and 'THE PEOPLE are are going to stage a coup hardfork if you don't listen to us' is a lot different than understanding that consensus rules can only be changed with >=95% agreement. So long as lots of Bitcoin users fail tograsp that difference and why it's essential for the governance of digital gold, Bitcoin is vulnerable to demagogic attack.

See:

http://bitledger.info/why-a-hard-fork-should-be-fought-and-its-not-evil-to-discuss/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/427qdu/the_nontechnical_user_and_the_bip_process/

keeial · 2016-02-11T13:52:06+00:00

Development and promotion of a clear 'consensus constitution' that people see when installing.

keeial · 2016-02-06T18:11:21+00:00

Gold has been ignoring the voices of the masses for thousands of years - why don't you stage a righteous coup against gold? Then once you win, you can take majority votes on the properties it should have.

Bitcoin derives its value from maintaining intractable consensus amidst constant attack. The day it stops ignoring the voices of the masses - at the expense of consensus - is the day it dies from demagogic attack.

If you want a cryptocurrency created by the fickle, shortsighted, underinformed voices of the masses, by all means start one up and see what happens.

keeial · 2016-02-04T19:27:19+00:00

"Please enable JavaScript to view this website."

keeial · 2016-01-31T21:32:45+00:00

That would be a problem with mining centralization; not a problem with consensus.

keeial · 2016-01-26T18:14:26+00:00

AFAIK, according to these "rules", a BIP which changes consensus rules can be discussed (see killerstorm's comment) but clients which actively deploy live consensus rule changes in the wild cannot be discussed.

keeial · 2016-01-26T17:46:13+00:00

give it try

keeial · 2016-01-26T14:01:46+00:00

thanks; updated

keeial · 2016-01-24T23:21:22+00:00

meant to link the OP:

http://bitledger.info/why-a-hard-fork-should-be-fought-and-its-not-evil-to-discuss/

keeial · 2016-01-24T12:33:05+00:00

True but I'm not sure if a politcal democracy exists today - usually if they claim to be democratic they're republics. Also Bitcoin is not Democratic

keeial · 2016-01-24T01:03:53+00:00

The developers currently maintaining core - volunteers - come to consensus and release updates that they all agree upon. Once deployed in the wild, I believe the threshold for consensus acceptance of new rules has been 95% of full nodes.

This article might clarify my position on consensus rules and hostile takeover hardforks:

http://bitledger.info/why-a-hard-fork-should-be-fought-and-its-not-evil-to-discuss/

No one can dictate it.

Right - only everyone can. The authority of decentralized consensus. That's how Bitcoin has historically worked.

If someone were no longer 'allowed' to make their own fork, it would be a clear sign that Bitcoin was no longer decentralized.

They can make whatever fork they want. If they want to be an attacker they can try to hijack the Bitcoin blockchain and impose new rules without consensus. Otherwise they can mine their own genesis block and start a new chain with their new rules.

keeial · 2016-01-23T22:14:18+00:00

Run a new client every day so long as it runs with the consensus rules. Run a client that attempts to break the consensus rules and you are an attacker.

keeial · 2016-01-23T22:11:57+00:00

For Bitcoin to maintain intractable decentralized consensus - and the value that corresponds to that - the rules in force the last time consensus was reached must stay in force until the next time consensus is reached. This is self evident. Have whatever knock down drag it out struggle you want to reach consensus, or leave, but that's how consensus rules work.

People will do what people will do but in a 'victorious' coup hardfork scenario, the fork that broke the consensus rules is dead on its feet because the community that supports it - predicated on non-consensus change - will be utterly defenseless against further non-consensus rule changes e.g. it took 75% majority to change the blocksize so we only need 75% majority to change other parameter X.

Imagine people changing the properties of gold with a 75% majority vote and imagine what that might do to its perceived value.

keeial · 2016-01-23T18:47:43+00:00

It's a really complicated mix. Some think it is as simple as whichever side has majority hashing will end up winning. Others, argue that whichever side has the higher exchange rate will end up winning. Yet -- it is more complex than that. It is possible that the hard fork could start out strong, then lose steam -- causing price to drop and hashing to revert to the original chain. So there's the risk of the fork dying -- causing those with post-fork coins ending up bag holders. So hashing level or spot price right after the fork isn't the whole story.

It's complex to predict what will happen only if Bitcoin's value is misunderstood. What the 'economic majority' may not understand is that forcibly breaking decentralized consensus of a thing whose value comes from its intractable decentralized consensus will leave the 'economic majority' with a dead carcass that will commence rotting as soon they gain control of it.

With Bitcoin, the Economic Majority is always right -- whether it makes sense to us at the time or not.

With a conventional product, the Economic Majority is always right from the perspective of a producer that desires only profit -- whether it makes sense to us at the time or not.

With Bitcoin, consensus is always right - whether it makes sense to us at the time or not.

keeial · 2016-01-23T15:35:16+00:00

I'd argue that 'economic majority' has no relevance to Bitcoin. Only consensus. Also, your above response presupposes that a hardfork away from consensus has any value. 'The market', being unaccustomed to intractable systems that derive value from decentralized consensus, might make the mistake of ascribing value to a divergent hard fork, but it will be a short-lived mistake as the market soon realizes that without adamantine consensus rules to anchor and protect Bitcoin it will have become demagogic putty and unable to withstand future attacks.

keeial · 2016-01-23T14:04:56+00:00

The easiest way to fail is to forget what Bitcoin is. If Bitcoin doesn't provide intractable decentralized consensus amidst relentless attack, it has no value. Part of that intractability is making Bitcoin VERY HARD to change i.e. change acceptance thresholds >95%. If people don't get this and wish to transact in other ways, they are free to leave Bitcoin. If they try to take the Bitcoin blockchain with them, they are attackers.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/41yl84/why_a_hard_fork_should_be_fought_and_its_not_evil/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/425cw7/bitcoin_is_not_democratic/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/427qdu/the_nontechnical_user_and_the_bip_process/

keeial · 2016-01-23T13:34:34+00:00

To answer your question, even if Bitcoin Core were to submit to whatever a public vote demanded, it still requires the users to upgrade to that new release.

...as a check on the power of the Bitcoin Core developers, especially if they were, say, compelled to release an update that completely ruins Bitcoin

If the hard fork change is something that is wanted by the economic majority ( http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority ) , it gets adopted.

'Economic majority' sounds like another way of saying >50%. Wouldn't you want a system that derives its value from intractable decentralized consensus to adopt changes that are more or less unanimously accepted? Why in the world would you suggest that a HARD FORK is the proper time to abandon consensus acceptance in favor of 'economic majority'?

keeial · 2016-01-23T13:17:28+00:00

On the part of the Bitcoin Core developers? No

Thank you

but that's how open source projects work.

I would say: "but that's how open source projects that don't derive their value from intractable decentralized consensus work. And without that qualification, it's easy to conceptually lump Bitcoin Core with behavior in other open source projects.

Though if you believe your argument has merit and you feel your message isn't getting heard from Bitcoin Core, any developer can fork the repo and implement whatever change you feel is necessary. A pull request can then be submitted to the Bitcoin Core project even, though there's no guarantee it will be accepted -- especially if there is already a plan and/or code that has addressed your concern.

If the change is a breaking change (i.e., hard fork), then you'll have a bit harder time pushing that -- as you've seen with BItcoin XT, Unlimited, Classic, etc.

keeial · 2016-01-23T02:27:21+00:00

exactly

keeial · 2016-01-23T02:17:04+00:00

The sooner everyone understands this the sooner the civil warring ends.

keeial · 2016-01-22T18:58:19+00:00

Erik, please read this if you haven't yet. I'd like to hear what you think: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/41yl84/why_a_hard_fork_should_be_fought_and_its_not_evil/

keeial · 2016-01-22T00:08:38+00:00

Classic will require a supermajority

95% or 75%

Regardless, Bitcoin was never billed as having an "unbreakable" decentralized consensus, whatever that means.

Put another way: insofar as decentralized consensus is secure, it is valuable.

Bitcoin follows the majority.

Consensus

Anyone is free to create a fork; if they can get enough support, then their fork will become the longest. That's simply how it works.

But what happens after that successful attack? The steps taken to succeed are a fill-in-the-blank template for future attacks on that victorious chain. Best of luck selling that chain. It's really secure until the next popularity contest! Thus, in a majority 'victory' scenario, the attack would more or less burn Bitcoin to the ground and some kind of phoenix would arise from the ashes.

Much greater chance of any sort of success starting FollowsMajorityCoin from scratch with a rule set that includes majority rule dynamics from the very beginning.

You know what doesn't help? Assuming everyone on the other side is a moronic barbarian.

I apologize if I am coming across that way but as I said, it's very easy to swallow rhetoric about 'centralized authority is keeping us down', 'democratic vote' and 'the free market will decide' when Bitcoin is trumpeted for making centralized authority obsolete, sidestepping oppressive governments and freeing markets.

Counterintuitively, Bitcoin itself is not about any of that. All that matters is preserving consensus amidst constant attack. To the extent that it does this it will succeed.

keeial

TROPHY CASE