Published on: 2015-09-30T16:14:42+00:00
The discussion on the mailing list focuses on the incorrect belief that users must follow the hashrate majority in Bitcoin. It is argued that market forces dictate that hashrates will follow users instead. If users are unhappy with hardfork rules, they may choose not to upgrade, leading to a split between two chains. Speculators may sell both A-coins and B-coins during this period of uncertainty. Miners can continue mining old coins as long as there is demand for them, even if the new rules chain has a majority of users and miners. The discussion about these issues should take place on Github or the bitcoin-dev thread linked from the BIP.Gavin Andresen initiated a thread discussing the possibility of two chains persisting after a hard fork. He expressed confusion and requested clarification on the matter. Allen Piscitello responded by stating that mining empty blocks is not considered fraud and asked for clear definitions of terms like "honest miner" and "fraud." Mike Hearn added to the discussion, pointing out that running a full node does not protect against a dishonest miner majority committing fraud, which is mentioned in the Bitcoin white paper. Andresen suggested moving the discussion to a more general list and emphasized the importance of miners following the rules of the protocol.The debate revolves around the concept of honest miners and fraud in Bitcoin mining. It is highlighted that the security assumption of Bitcoin is based on a supermajority of miners being honest. However, it is also acknowledged that miners are not infallible and may make misjudgments or change their decisions based on new information. The discussion emphasizes that relying on miners' honesty is necessary even if one runs a full node. Instances of accidental consensus forks are cited as evidence of miners' economic rationality and desire for Bitcoin's success.The discussion also touches on the feasibility of hard forks in the Bitcoin network. It is noted that at a threshold of 75%, it only takes 25.01% of hashpower to report but not enforce the fork, which can cause the majority hashpower to remain on the old chain. However, for upgraded clients to reject the old chain, the threshold needs to be at 95%. The potential risks and challenges associated with hard forks are highlighted, including the possibility of significant loss in value and transaction backlog for the smaller fork.In conclusion, the ongoing discussion addresses various aspects related to the security assumption of Bitcoin, the concept of honest miners, the possibility of hard forks, and the potential implications of splits in the Bitcoin network. It underscores the importance of understanding these issues and engaging in informed discussions to ensure the stability and integrity of the cryptocurrency.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T16:25:20.438095+00:00