pull down to refresh
[I worry that] reaching something like 95% consensus on some significant change is impossible.
Then every change is doomed, because for the rules of Bitcoin to stay enforced, you need 100% consensus. You cannot have 99% consensus. Or 51%. Bitcoin consensus isn't optional, it is a precondition to a functioning network, like you say:
it is probably more valuable than I know that there is something all bitcoin users on earth agree about every 10 minutes on average.
This is exactly why I'm a fan of high bars. Because that is what makes it tick - literally. We see some skirmishes on the side happening with chaintip races, but these become too expensive to grow too large at depths, don't grow larger than a few blocks (long live FPPS? hah!)
the risk that comes with debating the block validation rules is increasing
There's no risk in debates if it stays at debates, other than people falling asleep and being bored out of their mind. There's risk when we no longer agree with the shared codified truth that until that moment united us, like recently happened, or when there is discontent that the code didn't move a particular way, which happens much more often; i.e. someone's values are diverging from the mean and they find themselves and their values more important than the mean. Which is fine. The radicalization and the bullshit isn't, but I think that that's more a function of empires declining - which has never been pretty - than of Bitcoin intrinsically. Is there anything we can really have high profile, public discussions about? It always turns into a shitshow. And if it isn't then someone that likes shitshows for the lulz will come along and make it one.
some users will stop agreeing.
That will always happen. We don't need to be religious about the truth we codified for us. If someone cannot live with it, let them go. We're not saving souls (or murdering babies a la Ver.) We can discuss and disagree and even leave. Why not? I dislike it when people leave, but I like it less if they're prisoners.
I wonder what you mean by:
I think we may be underestimating the value of the already-agreed-upon nature of the current block validation rule-set.
In what way? Is it possible that for now Bitcoin is in a good position, and that although it is not perfect, it is in balance, and while this may change, there is a time when that comes and that does not have to be now per se? Or did you mean something else?
I also realize that I may need to try a new tune.
Surprising conclusion! Why? This feels sincere and sincerity is really a great thing to have? If you're convinced, then that's good?
By underestimating the value of the already-agreed-upon nature of the current validation rule-set, I think I was trying to get at an idea I've been struggling with all summer:
Bitcoin allows us to do something pretty incredible and that is to agree on the state of a ledger though we don't trust any of the other editors (the Byzantine General thing). But we can only do this so long as we all use the same block validation rules. Every time we alter these block validation rules, don't we run the risk of losing our Byzantine General protections?
The method Satoshi developed of solving the Byzantine Generals problem cannot be used when we negotiate changes to block validation rules (I think this was actually a crucial misunderstanding on the part of the BIP 110 people -- they thought heaviest chain mechanics could be used to "vote" on block validation rule changes, and that was just completely misguided).
But we still have a Byzantine Generals problem when we try to talk about block validation rule changes: we don't trust any of the actors in the debate. So, changes to the rules are fraught with danger. Your emphasis on a very high bar for measuring consensus seems like a potential way of avoiding the problem, but there's no real way to measure such a thing. Aren't we always kinda living on a prayer when it comes to miner signalling or thigns like that?
I wondered about needing a new tune because I don't think I've really come to a much deeper understanding of this topic in the last year and I feel that writing new versions of the same thoughts over and over is offputting (even if the thoughts are sincere).
Every time we alter these block validation rules, don't we run the risk of losing our Byzantine General protections?
No, you just risk ending up with 2 chains and most sane people agree that that is an undesirable outcome. I think that that's the other thing we may need to do besides respecting those that disagree with us: acting for the better of the whole, including those that disagree with us.
Isn't that where many proposals that come from more respectfully operating people (that may still ragequit) get stranded? Where the benefits (for everyone) don't clearly outweigh the risks (for everyone)? I think in these scenarios too that this is not a bad concept at all and that there, to date, is some balance, and maybe it even tips just a little bit to the influential-changer, looking at taproot, which in hindsight could have used maybe one more wide iteration before proposition (though maybe that really is only in hindsight - activation ultimately happened so quickly that I was astonished by it.)
BIP-110
I don't think that Luke after so many years stopped understanding the mechanics around how chaintips work. Instead I just think they overestimated their importance outside of their echo chamber. This is a fairly common mistake when people plan for coups, and why throughout history, many a general has been imprisoned, exiled, beheaded or otherwise disposed of.
But we still have a Byzantine Generals problem when we try to talk about block validation rule changes.
If before you commence to battle, 95% of your generals are telling you they're not going to obey you, is there really a Byzantine Generals problem at all? I think that if we watch reality as if everyone doing a proposal is a retarded child that will rather fork off than just not get what they want, then yes, we're in deep shit. But I've only really seen this once before and that was even more emotional than this.
chuckled out loud at that last paragraph.
I think I need to take my Byzantine General speculations back to the drawing board. I am still quite fascinated by the way we negotiate changes to bitcoins rules, but I always find that I haven't yet found a really good model of it in my head. (This despite initiatives like BCAP and the like.)
I made a poster about this:
95% consensus on some significant change is impossible
This is a feature.
You only arrive at the consensus once people stop talking to each other and debating. That's just politics, NGO's via coordinated influence operations have an outsized voice. The high bar for consensus exists to deprive influence operations of power.
If Bitcoin were to actually need something, something critical and perceptible without politics, the response would be innate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory)
Respect for those who disagree with you does not seem to be a common attitude. I worry that as the user-base of bitcoin gets bigger reaching something like 95% consensus on some significant change is impossible.
I think we may be underestimating the value of the already-agreed-upon nature of the current block validation rule-set. I don't want ossification. Though i'm not knowledgeable-enough to specify how, I'm optimistic enough to believe that Bitcoin can be improved upon. However, I think the risk that comes with debating the block validation rules is increasing -- it is probably more valuable than I know that there is something all bitcoin users on earth agree about every 10 minutes on average. Any change to block validation rules risks that some users will stop agreeing.
I also realize that I may need to try a new tune. This Mars article was published a year and a half ago, and it sounds suspiciously like #1572805 and even #1566339.