News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The Schism Over Bitcoin Is How Bitcoin Is Supposed to Work. Parent comment

Re:The Schism Over Bitcoin Is How Bitcoin Is Supposed to Work by MCRed on Friday February 12, 2016 @02:09PM (#11089608)
The voting is built into the bitcoin protocol-- the miners that find the next block are voting for the piece of software they are running. If there is a schism and some miners are running other software then two chains could -- COULD -- emerge-- but one will rapidly become the dominant one. ( for a period the two chains will effectively double everyone's bitcoins, but the losing chains coins will rapidly lose value as hashing power switches to the dominant chain.)

This could be chaotic so the debate is really how to avoid two co-existing chains in hard fork situation.

But bitcoin itself is, every 10 minutes, voting for what the "right" chain is, which is defined as the longest.

Right now today if you're mining on a block and find out that there is a longer chain, the node switches.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Schism Over Bitcoin Is How Bitcoin Is Supposed to Work by maaku on Friday February 12, 2016 @02:21PM (#11089732)
> Right now today if you're mining on a block and find out that there is a longer chain, the node switches.

Not if the longer chain is invalid under your node's consensus rules. The rule is "most-work valid chain."

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Schism Over Bitcoin Is How Bitcoin Is Supposed to Work by ChemicalWarfare on Friday February 12, 2016 @02:27PM (#11089788)
so you're talking about 2 kinds of "voting" here: 1. Decision by the miners on what version of protocol to support; 2. Consensus on the bitcoin network where nodes vote to determine which chain is valid.

"voting" I'm referring to (which there's none) is telling the core team which changes to implement. who's to tell them not to implement segwit for example?

[ Parent | on HN ]