Author: Eric Voskuil 2017-06-15 05:04:30
Published on: 2017-06-15T05:04:30+00:00
The discussion centers on the concept of consensus in Bitcoin and how users can express their opinions. The method to express an opinion on consensus at the protocol level is participation, which is neither flawed nor inequitable in the context of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a market, not a state, and the only choice one has is to participate or leave. Most people who think they are participating in Bitcoin have either never participated or long ago left the consensus. To have a say regarding hard forks, one must validate Bitcoin received in exchange for something else of economic value, while to have a say regarding soft forks, one must mine. Measuring meatspace consensus is pretty tricky if not completely impossible, especially given the fact that the vast majority of Bitcoin users do not voice any opinions on the matter of consensus rules. Every user who runs a fully validating node is free to enforce the rules with which they agree regardless of what rules other entities are enforcing. The question at hand is whether Bitcoin's developers, users, holders, service providers, and even miners still have faith in the majority of miners as designed in the white paper. The white paper refers to majority hashpower needing to be honest with regard to determining the correct chain within the context of many possible valid chain forks. It is not referring to using hashpower to determine the correct chain amongst an infinitely variable number of currently invalid chain forks. The BIP under discussion aims to temporarily invalidate tx version 1, which should be a soft fork, from what the participants understand.
Updated on: 2023-06-12T02:31:18.603603+00:00