pull down to refresh
144 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker 8h \ on: Consensus rules are enough for Bitcoin to succeed or Bitcoin fails bitcoin
I... sort of agree?
But aren't we going to need social layer decisions at some point or another? Lopp once gave a presentation about this, which I wrote about: #875560
Just to give the most obvious scenario: At some point Bitcoin might need to upgrade to quantum resistant encryption. That is obviously a change to the consensus rules. Isn't some social layer decision making going to be required to do that?
So, I agree with your overall sentiment, but I'm not sure we can really say that the consensus layer is all that's needed ever
I agree, but it seems to me that the social layer plays a role in determining what consensus rules a coin will follow. Once you accept the coins, the social layer has played its part and consensus is all there is.
If we decide we want different consensus rules, that means we want a different coin. We can fork, and in that case we actually end up with two sets of coins and we choose to sell one or the other (or we keep both, in which case we are saying we value both sets of consensus rules).
The social layer definitely plays a role, but it seems to me that role is in determining what the consensus rules are.
reply
Yeah, the social layer should determine (slowly and conservatively) changes to the consensus layer. Once the consensus rules are agreed upon, bitcoin needs to be able to operate and fulfill its purpose without social input, except for the next rare change to consensus rules.
reply