Author: email at yancy.lol 2022-10-18 18:57:17
Published on: 2022-10-18T18:57:17+00:00
In a discussion on the bitcoin-dev mailing list, Erik Aronesty shared his approach to code reviewing changes to complex systems. Instead of analyzing changes independently, he weighs them against what currently exists in the system. Aronesty argues that it is better to review changes as "better or worse than what we have," rather than evaluating whether they stand on their own. He believes that this approach allows the system to improve over time, rather than getting stuck. Jeremy Rubin responded by stating that the rules of the system need to be incentive-compatible for it to be functional. Rubin argues that the assumption of an honest majority cannot be accepted without reason and that reasoning should come from an argument that the rule set is incentive-compatible. Rubin also expresses concern about the stability of mining in a future low subsidy environment and how the system would function in such a scenario. Russell O'Connor adds that constructing situations where not mining on the tip is the preferred strategy is possible, but it does not lead to an immediate protocol collapse. The rarity of such situations and ways to reduce the chances of their occurrence are important factors to consider. While it is essential to understand the original vision laid out in the white paper, it is equally important to recognize that a lot has been learned since then. The discussion highlights a need to continuously evaluate and modify the system to ensure its security and functionality.
Updated on: 2023-06-16T01:54:39.795730+00:00