pull down to refresh
102 sats \ 12 replies \ @jakoyoh629 27 Sep \ on: What is your understanding of the process to change Bitcoin Core? bitcoin
Any Bitcoin implementation needs to be open-source. We gotta have public discussion about any changes, consensus stuff or whatever. I get that private or closed versions can exist too, but the people with the build keys basically run the show on that specific code (Open and private source).
I haven't read too much on this drama, but I still haven't seen the main miners say anything. And just so we're clear, they're the ones who really call the shots, by the way. I bet those huge mining companies just have their own dev teams and run their own code anyway.
[Miners are] the ones who really call the shots
Why do you think that?
reply
I'm not saying they run the show by themselves; it's a balance between the miners, the devs, and the hodlers. Nobody's trying to screw anyone over, but for me, Bitcoin is all about the hashpower—that's where the security comes from. If that core thing fails, how is everything else supposed to survive?
reply
Because people. See Risk Sharing Principle:
Bitcoin is not secured by blockchains, hash power, validation, decentralization, cryptography, open source or game theory - it is secured by people.Technology is never the root of system security. Technology is a tool to help people secure what they value. Security requires people to act. A server cannot be secured by a firewall if there is no lock on the door to the server room, and a lock cannot secure the server room without a guard to monitor the door, and a guard cannot secure the door without risk of personal harm.
reply
Aight, I get it. Bitcoin's a tool, and the people are the ones who secure it and share the risk. If everyone takes on their piece, the whole thing's safer. Word.
Now, I could be wrong, but the way I see it—even with my limited knowledge—the cats who control the hashpower are the ones with the most control. I ain't saying they're in charge all by themselves, but they got the real power on the ground. Theoretically, you can talk about other scenarios, sure. Like, other mining groups (ocean-knots) are becoming a real option cause they're stacking up some serious hashpower now.
But to me, hashpower is the whole lifeblood of Bitcoin.
reply
Just because there are less pools than there are pure economic actors doesn't mean that the group as a whole has more power, it's just that it's less distributed because not enough people have their solar bitaxe yet (hyperbole, but for a reason - block template centralization is an issue.)
Like, other mining groups (ocean-knots) are becoming a real option cause they're stacking up some serious hashpower now.
See pool share - it's under 2% and it looks like the peaks correlate with people renting off nicehash. I'd be totes happy if Ocean has 10% of the blocks, even if they won't mine coinjoins or p2a. Diversity is good.
reply
Miners have no power. And that's a good thing
The market decides which set of consensus rules has the most valuable token, and then the miners flock to it
Miners are sheep, following the money, while the (economic) nodes are the shepherds
It's possible that a lot of stubborn miners will keep their hashrate on the least-valuable chain for a long time. But that's not my problem 😜.
The only exception is in the extremely unlikely event that a large group of miners are able to coordinate themselves to do an extended 51% attack on the chain they don't like. But that won't happen as it requires too much coordination and will be insanely expensive
We, the node runners, must stay vigilant and constantly take actions to ensure miners don't gain any power, as things could change in future
reply
The market decides which set of consensus rules has the most valuable token, and then the miners flock to it
What token? Sounds like shitcoin. Ahhh
reply
reply
I thought it was just coins on Bitcoin, not tokens.
reply
reply
concepts are always shifting, but in my book, any token is just a shitcoin, even if it's stamped on Bitcoin.