📅 Original date posted:2015-08-20
📝 Original message:POW is by design the voting mechanism for the valid chain continuation.
Many rightfully dislike that the same voting mechanism is used on the validity rules, since ideally
validators (non-mining full nodes), SPV user and even those having an investment in their cold wallet
would all have a vote.
That ideal voting mechanism is not yet in the protocol.
Before XT we used discussions and an informal consensus of those with commit access to github to evolve Bitcoin.
The decision, not the discussion, is now suggested to be replaced with POW vote with XT.
It is not hard to see problems with both approaches.
If XT comes closer to miner majority, validators will also be forced to take side, so they will be able to express
their vote. I think that most Bitcoin entrepreneurs will pick XT if Core has no comparable offer
to scale transactions per second.
XT, Not-XT and a Core with some not-BIP101 offer will potentially set the stage for the perfect hard fork storm.
I still believe, that the idea of Bitcoin is powerful enough to weather that storm.
Tamas Blummer
> On Aug 20, 2015, at 14:29, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Security is provided via POW.
>
> POW is only one aspect of security and that algorithm was created by developers and adopted by miners. Developers provide security by creating an algorithm and miners provide security by adopting it. If the developers and miners decided to do something insecure then Bitcoin will be insecure. POW is not some outside force.
>
> The security of Bitcoin as a system is a very complex subject that involve a number of factors that are the result of actions by humans.
>
> Russ
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150820/f662b0ec/attachment.html>;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150820/f662b0ec/attachment.sig>;
Tamas Blummer [ARCHIVE] /
npub1cc…ex8m8
2023-06-07 17:35:35
in reply to nevent1q…9qc4
Author Public Key
npub1ccegg9n9lnx6huppxg43m95488yur7pfemkn3pz0agjws5ffvtts0ex8m8Published at
2023-06-07 17:35:35Event JSON
{
"id": "d580e8b4a2285b1cbdb5aec25ae3330ae0d6d20c038adf26d58bfb94b291a2cf",
"pubkey": "c632841665fccdabf021322b1d969539c9c1f829ceed38844fea24e8512962d7",
"created_at": 1686159335,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c8deaa0aeee1e5d915e04ef7baf8b8074172a310b656820cd8767442ca514e56",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"0dd42377e02ab7672e58be136bd6ab5b66682a40b7dd209f951285c8d63a497a",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1b29d94ee81e1ee0479f1db4bc4ac887407bd470a0d7060e76f8ab27fdd57e50"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-20\n📝 Original message:POW is by design the voting mechanism for the valid chain continuation.\n\nMany rightfully dislike that the same voting mechanism is used on the validity rules, since ideally\nvalidators (non-mining full nodes), SPV user and even those having an investment in their cold wallet\nwould all have a vote.\n\nThat ideal voting mechanism is not yet in the protocol.\n\nBefore XT we used discussions and an informal consensus of those with commit access to github to evolve Bitcoin.\nThe decision, not the discussion, is now suggested to be replaced with POW vote with XT.\n\nIt is not hard to see problems with both approaches.\n\nIf XT comes closer to miner majority, validators will also be forced to take side, so they will be able to express\ntheir vote. I think that most Bitcoin entrepreneurs will pick XT if Core has no comparable offer\nto scale transactions per second.\n\nXT, Not-XT and a Core with some not-BIP101 offer will potentially set the stage for the perfect hard fork storm.\n\nI still believe, that the idea of Bitcoin is powerful enough to weather that storm.\n\nTamas Blummer\n\n\u003e On Aug 20, 2015, at 14:29, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Security is provided via POW.\n\u003e \n\u003e POW is only one aspect of security and that algorithm was created by developers and adopted by miners. Developers provide security by creating an algorithm and miners provide security by adopting it. If the developers and miners decided to do something insecure then Bitcoin will be insecure. POW is not some outside force.\n\u003e \n\u003e The security of Bitcoin as a system is a very complex subject that involve a number of factors that are the result of actions by humans.\n\u003e \n\u003e Russ\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150820/f662b0ec/attachment.html\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 496 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150820/f662b0ec/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "ff39fc251b5d97e160950bd86e4499e0db947227923189517ff515704852e8ff6ff4f58949f422d9b662103535af835347c6b355e216d157dadfe8c7e3864179"
}