Author: Peter Todd 2022-10-20 22:28:16
Published on: 2022-10-20T22:28:16+00:00
In a discussion on the Bitcoin-dev mailing list, a participant referenced the Bitcoin white paper's statement that proof-of-work (PoW) solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making. The paper suggests that if majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone able to allocate many IPs. PoW is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest PoW effort invested in it. However, a participant in the discussion considered this to be a fundamental mistake as the whitepaper and initial Bitcoin release chooses the *longest* chain, rather than the most work chain. The participant argued that economically rational majority should be prioritized over honest majority for system security guarantees. Further, standard computationally infeasible guarantees or even mathematically impossible guarantees should be used whenever possible. In conclusion, the participant opined that there is no reason why Bitcoin should be fundamentally different from Ethereum, where smart contract schemes have led to significant efforts in economically rational MEV optimization, albeit at the cost of decentralization.
Updated on: 2023-06-16T01:54:50.231947+00:00