Author: Luke Dashjr 2016-02-03 00:03:31
Published on: 2016-02-03T00:03:31+00:00
In a discussion about defining Bitcoin, Dave Scotese suggested that rules and code define what Bitcoin is. However, the process requires consensus and it can come after the release of Bitcoin to the public. The problem with defining Bitcoin is that it needs to refer to three different contexts of consensus: consensus among developers for changes in the BIP process, economic consensus to veto a soft-fork by firing a set of miners if they choose to enforce it, and the actual consensus in economic adoption of changed rules to determine the success of a hard-fork. The set of rules currently established as defining Bitcoin is enforced by an actual consensus of economically-relevant nodes. Context 3 can be disambiguated with adoption consensus, and context 4 with consensus rules and/or consensus protocol. However, even using the word consensus for all four contexts may be confusing. Additionally, the usage of the word consensus for context 4 has proven confusing to users who misinterpreted it as implying that the idea itself had achieved consensus among some group of decision-makers. The author seeks suggestions to make this clearer.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T03:32:19.764797+00:00