Author: Tier Nolan 2014-04-23 18:58:16
Published on: 2014-04-23T18:58:16+00:00
Bitcoin has various checks and balances that keep everything honest. Sites monitor blocks and estimate the percentage of blocks found by each pool, even if a pool had 60% of the hashing power, they couldn't reverse six blocks without anyone noticing. Bitcoin doesn't depend on majority miners following protocol but depends on miners believing that a majority of other miners will follow it. Soft forks work because the formal process convinces all miners that new rules are locked in. In a system where miners can vote to cancel coinbases, each pool has an incentive to reject everyone else's blocks. Pools on the receiving end will be less profitable and lose customers. The proposal allows "established" pools to vote to disallow new entrants. The proposal doesn't suddenly give the majority the ability to do it, but it isn't clear that making the process less disruptive is a good thing. If a miner has 5% of the hashing power and believes that the other 95% will follow protocol, then the system should be set up so that it is in that miner's interests to follow the protocol too. It is possible that "predatory" pools would lose hashing power as miners switch to other pools, in protest. They could even justify it by saying that those pools haven't invested in "anti-double spending" infrastructure.
Updated on: 2023-06-08T20:50:46.872556+00:00