Author: Peter Todd 2014-12-15 04:17:14
Published on: 2014-12-15T04:17:14+00:00
In a discussion about client-side validation and the possible occurrence of soft-forks, it was suggested that hard-forks using scheduled updates could be an alternative. However, Peter Todd, Chief Scientist at Mastercoin, argues that embedded consensus systems can be safely upgraded in a decentralized fashion. He explains that this is achieved by ensuring that when a token visible to version V_i is spent in a V_{i+1} client, the token appears spent to version V_i clients as well. This is done by separating all operations into separate "increment" and "decrement" operations through a “split transaction” scheme. Todd further explains that the social/political implications of upgrades are important because embedded consensus systems require the cooperation of the economic majority. He notes that forks caused by upgrades must be handled such that only one set of rules applies to a given txout spend to prevent double-spending. Additionally, if the community has two competing proposals for an upgrade, adoption of a new version becomes a vote with serious economic consequences. It's possible that a community would choose to simply fork into two different systems each offering a different set of features. Equally, someone can create a third version that recombines the two incompatible forks. Todd argues that this process of handling forks by direct economic voting is more decentralized than Bitcoin's soft-fork mechanism, as adoption of a new version is something all participants in the system play a part in equally. However, he notes that it will lead to sometimes ugly political battles, but that's simply part of the cost of having democratic systems.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T14:45:38.218153+00:00