MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55CF871E.9050500@sky-ip.org>
References: <CA+w+GKT7t5OahS-+P=QAmOyFzPnOs4J6KSo+mhSrC0YggmMupg@mail.gmail.com>
	<55CF871E.9050500@sky-ip.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 21:21:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+w+GKTG6a_v4Jop3FZ2O2WG9Fi=o0Lnh58OH4Y4sM-vPjFHSQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com>
To: s7r@sky-ip.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc9e4e0d2ebc051d5e7b0a
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A
Precedence: list

--047d7bdc9e4e0d2ebc051d5e7b0a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> I use bitcoin heavily (not from time to time) but I don't mine - can I
> vote? The way I see it I cannot, and I am not saying it is a bad thing,
> but I missed the argument explaining why users don't matter and only
> miners do.
>

It is a reasonable question. Let me try and explain why it's done this way.

*In theory*, you do have a vote. If a majority of miners were to club
together and decide to change the protocol against the wishes of the wider
user base, then we'd get a fight between the hashpower majority and the
so-called economic majority. And because bitcoins only have value because
you can buy things with them, in theory, the wishes of the economic
majority should always win.

*In practice*, the code we have today doesn't let us measure what the
economic majority wants. It's not even really clear how that term is
defined. Intuitively we can understand that people who are trading real
goods and services for bitcoin have the final say, because they can always
just refuse to accept BTC. But defining it precisely enough to put in an
algorithm is tricky.

Then you have the question of how to express the vote? For miners, it's
easy: they express their vote by switching to a different full node
implementation that gives them different blocks.

For users, it'd mean switching to a different wallet. If their wallet is
fully validating and the decision is implemented via hard fork, this is
sufficient. If the wallet is *not* fully validating and cannot detect the
fork point by itself, then it'd need help in the form of checkpointing.
Some months ago I pointed out this possibility and a whole bunch of people
freaked out - then bitcoin.org decided to start censoring any wallet that
said it'd ignore what miners wanted.

So if you want a user vote, that's an issue that'd have to be tackled: the
people who admin the main communication channels Bitcoin users have vowed
to censor any program that doesn't slavishly follow 51%+ hash power. That
attempt to control the conversation is certainly not libertarian or
democratic in nature, but there you go.

We can also imagine voting via proof-of-stake. This might be useful as a
form of opinion poll, but wallet developers would have to actually add
support for such a protocol to their apps, and then we're back to the same
issue as with mining pools. Plus, of course, static wealth does not equal
economic importance.

Luckily the wallet market is a decentralisation success story. There are
wallets everywhere these days. Man+dog make their own wallet, it seems. So
it's not silly to think a coin voting protocol could one day happen.

--047d7bdc9e4e0d2ebc051d5e7b0a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">I use bitcoin heavily (not from time to time) bu=
t I don&#39;t mine - can I<br>
vote? The way I see it I cannot, and I am not saying it is a bad thing,<br>
but I missed the argument explaining why users don&#39;t matter and only<br=
>
miners do.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It is a reasonable question.=
 Let me try and explain why it&#39;s done this way.</div><div><br></div><di=
v><i>In theory</i>, you do have a vote. If a majority of miners were to clu=
b together and decide to change the protocol against the wishes of the wide=
r user base, then we&#39;d get a fight between the hashpower majority and t=
he so-called economic=C2=A0majority. And because bitcoins only have value b=
ecause you can buy things with them, in theory, the wishes of the economic =
majority should always win.</div><div><br></div><div><i>In practice</i>, th=
e code we have today doesn&#39;t let us measure what the economic majority =
wants. It&#39;s not even really clear how that term is defined. Intuitively=
 we can understand that people who are trading real goods and services for =
bitcoin have the final say, because they can always just refuse to accept B=
TC. But defining it precisely enough to put in an algorithm is tricky.</div=
><div><br></div><div>Then you have the question of how to express the vote?=
 For miners, it&#39;s easy: they express their vote by switching to a diffe=
rent full node implementation that gives them different blocks.=C2=A0</div>=
<div><br></div><div>For users, it&#39;d mean switching to a different walle=
t. If their wallet is fully validating and the decision is implemented via =
hard fork, this is sufficient. If the wallet is <i>not</i>=C2=A0fully valid=
ating and cannot detect the fork point by itself, then it&#39;d need help i=
n the form of checkpointing. Some months ago I pointed out this possibility=
 and a whole bunch of people freaked out - then <a href=3D"http://bitcoin.o=
rg">bitcoin.org</a> decided to start censoring any wallet that said it&#39;=
d ignore what miners wanted.</div><div><br></div><div>So if you want a user=
 vote, that&#39;s an issue that&#39;d have to be tackled: the people who ad=
min the main communication channels Bitcoin users have vowed to censor any =
program that doesn&#39;t slavishly follow 51%+ hash power. That attempt to =
control the conversation is certainly not libertarian or democratic in natu=
re, but there you go.</div><div><br></div><div>We can also imagine voting v=
ia proof-of-stake. This might be useful as a form of opinion poll, but wall=
et developers would have to actually add support for such a protocol to the=
ir apps, and then we&#39;re back to the same issue as with mining pools. Pl=
us, of course, static wealth does not equal economic importance.=C2=A0</div=
><div><br></div><div>Luckily the wallet market is a decentralisation succes=
s story. There are wallets everywhere these days. Man+dog make their own wa=
llet, it seems. So it&#39;s not silly to think a coin voting protocol could=
 one day happen.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>

--047d7bdc9e4e0d2ebc051d5e7b0a--