Can you smell the divide and conquer?

Those who are for #SegWit2x are against rough consensus. Those who are for #BIP148 #UASF are against rough consensus.

Being against rough consensus is bad for your health. There are very good reasons why neither proposal has it.

#Bitcoin has a disciplined engineering process by which it modifies the protocol called Rough Consensus. Anyone opposed is free to HF off.

That disciplined process has kept #Bitcoin running uninterrupted for 8 years now. Those who wish to chuck it can chuck themselves.

I am not against a #UASF. I am against a #UASF that doesn't have rough consensus.

*slap* Are we in consensus? *slap* HOW 'BOUT NOW?!

Rough consensus is a very specific type of consensus. lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitc…

The kind I like.

lol. OK, I get the joke now. 😅

*4 years Still, the Bitcoin network has been functional for 99.991517697% of the time since its inception on Jan 3 2009 02:54:25 GMT.

You referring to the BerkeleyDB bug?

Correct.

(Technically, BerkeleyDB was working fine. But yes.)

Alright, well, can I leave that obscure factoid out for trivia? 😄

We'll store it on a wiki no one reads. 👌

Hazzah! 🙌 🎉

There's still a chance that in 600 years it'll be an epic myth though ...

It was an important lesson, that's for sure.

"The year is 2617. Atheist factions fight over who believes in the real Satoshi."

"Satoshi came from the heavens and told a disciple to build a boat. He did, named SegWit. Lightning struck and SegWit caried all the txs."

In the Third Act @halfin comes out of cryogen to save the world. Tada. Teh end.

I LIKE TO YELL ABOUT BLOCKS! I LOVE LAMP

I needed some help with that one. I haven't seen Anchorman. 😭

That does appear to be what several groups are trying to do.

*trying. They're embarrassing themselves as, this too will ultimately make Bitcoin stronger and better.

By embarrassing, I mean showing the world how selfish and competitive they are which is bad for your rep, and soon rep will matter.

I'm not convinced "rough consensus" is a sustainable governance model in genuinely adversarial environments. No country runs on it.

Basically, I think it works great when all participants identify as being the same tribe, but otherwise too vulnerable to obstructionism.

Could argue blockchains != countries, but need to give specific difference that makes rough cons work well in one case and not the other.

I personally believe a key difference is the ability to much more easily resolve deep disagreements peacefully by chain splits.

That it might not be sustainable does not mean it's a bad thing. The goal is to sustain it as long as possible — because it's a good thing!

As far as resolving "deep disagreements peacefully by chain splits"… from what I've seen it's been anything but peaceful.

However, am not disagreeing with the overall point you're making. Protocols should have splitting *built-in* to them.

☝️ That's something I might work on soon, maybe w/@VladZamfir or whoever else might be interested.

Curious how you see this working

Doesn't need to be in-protocol. Forking infrastructure can incl. standards for light client awareness, wallets automatically handling forks

We're working on some of that in the Zcash protocol, in order to ease operations and protect users in the event of chainsplits.

Standards are protocols. ^_^

Would surely be interesting to bake into protocol. I think at some level, will help solve speed issues as well.

I'm interested. I touched on this idea briefly near the end of my Tezos article. This paragraph:

"Splitting built-in" just described @tez0s @ArthurB

Does it? My understanding was that Tez0s only allows consensus rule changes /for the entire chain/, not a new chain?

Indeed. Tezos has an official goal of eliminating the need for extra-protocol governance; I personally disagree with this direction.

To be clear: eliminate the need yes, the possibility, no. Hard-forks are valuable failsafes and you make a great case for it.

Attacks ad hominem... not done

ETH GOING DOWN TO 10 cents on GDAX. GUARANTEED. 100%.

feel free !! i have trade all my ethers for tezos :) good luck with miners and ethereum number 3 😂

Yes, one of the main motivation is avoiding splits due to "battle of the sexes" situations.

Beyond a certain number of users it's unlikely you'll be able to avoid a split. Impossible to appease two opposing sides

Opposed doesn't mean they want to split. Both sides pretend they want to split to gain a bargaining advantage. It's a game of chicken.

Sure, but I literally mean there's some number beyond which a split is inevitable. Hence anticipating and building it into the protocol

Yes, but why would you want to make it easier? Splits destroy network effects.

There are very good reasons. Think I'll write them up long form

Mind you, what's in my head is not what people will probably get from reading this thread

See secession/coercion dichotomy: vitalik.ca/general/2017/0…

> Soft forks are more convenient as users do not need to upgrade Many "soft-forks" introduce new semantic and require an upgrade.

is the best creative logic / implementation on the way....

i.e. being on the right branch certainly is critical but knowing what it means is equally important. That said we're drifting from the topic

When r u lunching ur tezso

Fnf date

A hard-fork doesn't "let the market sort it out", it's a beauty contest. It's about capturing the Schelling point.

It's primarily a game of legitimacy. Why do you think people perform elaborate Satoshi hermeneutics in defending their scaling solutions?

"Satoshi hermeneutics" 😂

I think this *might* be true in the limit, in some sufficiently large scale, sufficiently mature system. Currently not true.

Note: I agree with the main point of the article, soft-forks *are* more coercive because miners care *a lot* about mining the winning chain.

I don't agree, not at a technical level anyway. Two splitting factions could even both mutually soft fork away from each other.

It depends on how tightly knit your community is. Disparate communities will herd towards the Schelling point. Bitcoin may already be there.

how do you prevent the early buyers to change rules as to favor themselves? Ex, issuance.

True, though very substantial pressure still exists toward the branch that creates a better platform

Modern markets between social media platforms are also about capturing the schelling point, but they still perform kinda okay

Витал мы любим тебя ❤️

I support both @tez0s along with Ethereum. In the near future I hope they can say the same.

ETHEREUM ETH GOONG DOWN TO 10 cents on GDAX. GUARANTEED 100%.

Splitting built in can allow forks to amicably split coins. Choosing and staking to a fork may prevent rashness and even promote cohesion.

ETH/ETC split wasn't peaceful? Before the split: lots of vitriol. After: seems peaceful. After split, sides don't affect each other as much.

What's your definition of peaceful? No one has been killed over a chain split.

Sure, though I worry attempts to sustain it slide too easily into creating bubbles of ppl who can get rough consensus with each other

Wouldn't this result in ending scarcity which allows for value in first place?

No. It's not like the chains would split infinitely in 1 second.

A progressive split would still result in scarcity compromised momentarily. Weakest chain value trend to zero.

You guys are right!

Couldn't agree more. This is exactly how nature works/adapts and evolves into new more resilient species.

I'm glad you came to that conclusion too. Now others might actually listen.

I think what u are trying to zero in on is "use case"-If there is just 1 use case than there are min variables & a rough consensus can work

Same species would be a good idea, other too vulnerable to destruction

There's no way of knowing who the participants even are. Completely unworkable.

Arguably, Poland did...leading to peaceful gridlock for a time before being crushed by outside powers in the world wars.

No countries having it is a good thing, look at how every county is run ffs, that want we are supposed to be trying to change.

I am not saying it's good or bad, but rejecting it simply bc no country using it already is bad.