Consensus rules are enough for Bitcoin to succeed or Bitcoin fails \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

Consensus rules are enough for Bitcoin to succeed or Bitcoin fails delvingbitcoin.org/t/response-to-pieter-wuilles-stackexchange-answer-re-nuking-the-opreturn-filter/1991/11

2614 sats \ 37 comments \ @Scoresby 8 Oct bitcoin

This to me is the whole point here.

Bitcoin came about because social consensus is really hard and messy. Bitcoin is a system by which people can agree to a minimum set of rules and reliably come to consensus no matter what.

As long as you subscribe to the consensus rules of Bitcoin, you will be able to agree with an unknown set of actors about updates to a ledger without any governing party. This is revolutionary and incredible.

If you don't believe that the consensus rules are enough (or very close to enough) for this system to succeed, you probably need to choose a different system.

view all related items

144 sats \ 6 replies \ @SimpleStacker 8 Oct

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

102 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 8 Oct

Not decisions. Trends.

30 sats \ 4 replies \ @Scoresby OP 8 Oct

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.

102 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 8 Oct

plays a role in determining what consensus rules a coin will follow

Which softfork restricted freedom on the consensus layer? The only restriction I remember is the early hard forks satoshi did on script and on block size (basically what GSR is trying to restore.)

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 8 Oct

Haven't all of them restricted freedom on the consensus layer? At the very least, something everybody used to agree was "anyone can spend" now will get you forked if you mine it that way.

At first I did have a paragraph about soft forks in my reply above, but I took it out, because it seems to me that soft forks are a different set of rules just like hard forks, only soft forks have this clever property that if miners agree to only mine the new set of rules, it looks like we are all still following the same rule set as before.

Certainly the way I have learned about Bitcoin, the popular opinion is that hard forks are dangerous and bad and soft forks are lovely and good because hard forks are real actual rule changes while soft forks are...something else.

But soft forks are rule changes and they are forks. Wouldn't any one of the soft forks in Bitcoin have lead to a chainsplit if the significant amount of miners didn't go along with it?

In my comment above, I was hazarding that when a person accepts a coin in payment or trade, they are agreeing to the consensus rules followed by the coin they accept. If a person later decides they don't like those rules, they can attempt to convince people to accept a new set of rules (fork). At the end of the day, if they convince lots of people to accept their new rules, the coins will have value -- so that's where the social layer plays its role.

But saying they don't want to follow the rules they previously agreed to without trying to fork is nonsensical.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 8 Oct

At the very least, something everybody used to agree was "anyone can spend" now will get you forked if you mine it that way.

Everyone also has agreed, on OP_SUCCESSx since inception, and OP_NOPx since almost forever, that this is extension space. So if you're doing this you're kind of retarded and asking for trouble, on top of being kind of retarded to do "anyone can spend" in the first place. Can just spend to OP_TRUE if you want to donate your coin to greedy bots, or OP_RETURN if you want to burn your coin.

Wouldn't any one of the soft forks in Bitcoin have lead to a chainsplit if the significant amount of miners didn't go along with it?

Could have if a significant amount of miners at the same time did go along with it, yes, and someone exploited it (very easy.)

At the end of the day, if they convince lots of people to accept their new rules, the coins will have value -- so that's where the social layer plays its role.

If there will be 2 chains as a result, then it's a hardfork though. We call that shitcoining.

But saying they don't want to follow the rules they previously agreed to without trying to fork is nonsensical.

Agreed. With forking it is also nonsensical in 99.99% of the cases. And UASF without sacrificing your coin on the non-fork side is a nonsensical virtue signaling sybil attack, so that too is dumb.

while soft forks are...something else.

Soft forks (especially if done right, with very high activation criteria, like the 95% we are used to) are consensus-building. Hard forks are consensus-breaking and the only reason for them to be successful is because there happened to already be consensus. That's the difference, I'd say.

102 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 8 Oct

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.

132 sats \ 18 replies \ @sudonaka 8 Oct

Then why did Satoshi enable mempool filters in 2010?

0 sats \ 17 replies \ @Scoresby OP 8 Oct

Because they were convenient. Filters are fine for discouraging science experiments, but not as useful for changing consensus.

0 sats \ 16 replies \ @sudonaka 9 Oct

filters dont change consensus.

we cant change consensus every time there is new spam.

that is why we have filters, so they can be updated often.

removing filters is not a good idea. and you wont secceed any of your goals.

0 sats \ 15 replies \ @Scoresby OP 9 Oct

filters dont change consensus

perhaps you should accept consensus then.

we can't change consensus every time there is new spam

thank god: if you could, anyone who got a social movement going against transactions they don't like, would try to make them consensus invalid.

that is why we have filters, so they can be updated often

but they don't change consensus, so what's the point of updating them?

removing filters is not a good idea. and you won't succeed at any of your goals

my goal is censorship resistant money. what is yours? telling people which valid transactions are good and which are bad?

0 sats \ 14 replies \ @sudonaka 9 Oct

We were telling people which transactions are good and which were bad (non-standard) since 2010 you fool

0 sats \ 13 replies \ @Scoresby OP 9 Oct

Other than the current debate, is there another instance of a standardness rule for which there seemed to be sustained demand for transactions violating it?

0 sats \ 12 replies \ @sudonaka 9 Oct

Have fun with your legal defense explaining why you were pushing CP to other nodes before confirmation.

0 sats \ 11 replies \ @Scoresby OP 9 Oct

isn't this also true for ofac sanctioned transactions?

I want a reasonable answer how you propose to create a mechanism that works for CP but doesn't work for OFAC?.

view all 11 replies

102 sats \ 0 replies \ @carter 8 Oct

I don't think the mempool is the end, modifying consensus has always been the plan

102 sats \ 8 replies \ @optimism 8 Oct

The consensus rules allow you to have the social layer, so I actually see some sense in what Chris is saying here.

However, social layers don't have uniformity, so don't expect it to be totalitarian; instead, accept the fact that because the social layer is used for some things, there will be differing opinions and variable outcomes. You can argue against a view like a politician, but you don't have nukes, so you cannot force people to do what you want, like a politician.

111 sats \ 7 replies \ @Scoresby OP 8 Oct

bitcoin's identity as money cannot be enforced at the consensus layer

I agree with this: it's not money because someone says so. It's money because I want it.

Where I disagree is with the idea that bitcoin's identity as money needs to be enforced at all. It would be a strange thing to demand that gold only be used in trade and have no industrial or aethetic uses. However Chris feels about it, the fact remains that gold is useful to some people for things other than trade. Bitcoin is the same.

I'm happy to entertain any suggestions Chris has about changing the consensus rules of Bitcoin to make it a better tool for being money (which in my mind would primarily be improving its censorship resistant qualities).

But I don't understand demands that people only use a tool a certain way. Saying valid transactions shouldn't get mined is an oxymoron in a system like Bitcoin -- the whole point of the system is to ensure that valid transactions can get mined even when other people don't like them.

It would be about as effective for Chris to propose a EULA for Bitcoin. We can have everyone sign an agreement before they use it that says they promise to only use Bitcoin as money and nothing else.

111 sats \ 6 replies \ @optimism 8 Oct

But you're going directly against what I posed: EULA and consensus changes to enforce one's view are anti-bitcoin, and that is also not what Chris is saying in what you quoted: he's saying that it is impossible to do it in consensus.

So what I add is: since it is impossible in consensus, it's impossible period. And thus there will be some conflict on the policy layer, forever. And that is fine.

100 sats \ 5 replies \ @Scoresby OP 8 Oct

since it is impossible in consensus, it's impossible. And thus there will be some conflict on the policy layer, forever. And that is fine.

This is a good observation. I think I would extend it though to say "there will be some conflict on the policy layer, forever. And that is fine. But also getting worked up about it is pointless.

that is also not what Chris is saying

He says: "the only way to enforce that bitcoin stays money is if we enforce its usage as money at the social/mempool layer"

This sounds like EULAs to me. I'm trying to take issue with the idea that the usage of bitcoin should be enforced anywhere other than at the consensus layer.

102 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 8 Oct

But also getting worked up about it is pointless.

If there is no alternative, then getting worked up about it is useful if you channel that energy towards building the alternative. Once there is an alternative, there is indeed nothing to be truly upset about.

I'm trying to take issue with the idea that the usage of bitcoin should be enforced anywhere other than at the consensus layer.

I agree with the first part, right before "anywhere", simply because I think that the usage of bitcoin should only be enforced minimally in the consensus layer. The larger you make consensus' responsibility, the more problematic and potentially oppressive it becomes. I won't support any consensus change to limit currently available freedoms, even if that means there will be abuse.

Rigidity can be solved by running a pruned node + whatever filters you desire + LN, but running a full archival node will today, and in the future, require a sacrifice to the morality of the data you're serving. After all, Luke put scripture on the chain and I'm serving that.

100 sats \ 3 replies \ @Scoresby OP 8 Oct

I agree with the first part, right before "anywhere"

Yes, this is definitely an improvement on what I said. It's also helpful for me to think about this in the context of freedom. Consensus being the minimum set of rules we all need to agree to in order for Bitcoin to work.

102 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 8 Oct

There is another thing that was said in that thread, that sipa quoted and that I also liked:

the point of Bitcoin is not to take power away from a central group and give it to the people, it’s to take power away from the central group and give it to no one at all.

This is what I have believed about Bitcoin since day 1 (which is for me 2013.) I also have always held Bitcoin Core (in my mind, I don't really want to argue with maintainers) to exactly that standard, and although it didn't always succeed in the most precise definition of it, it broadly has¹.

Note that now that @schmidty's PR is merged, it broadly has once more satisfied the "standard"; if that PR would have been closed, action may have been needed, and I was personally preparing for the contingency, to at least make patches and how-to-patch guides / guix builds, and maybe more, but I am really glad that it isn't needed. ↩

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 8 Oct

There's a really great line in Lord of the Rings about Sauron and the ring:

He is in great fear, not knowing what mighty one may suddenly appear, wielding the Ring, and assailing him with war, seeking to cast him down and take his place. That we should wish to cast him down and have no one in his place is not a thought that occurs to his mind. That we should try to destroy the Ring itself has not yet entered into his darkest dream.

It works so well with Bitcoin I used a variation of it on a poster:

Thanks for the insights you shared. It's because of things like this that Bitcoin is endlessly captivating to me.

view all 1 replies

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @035736735e 8 Oct outlawed

stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.

Footnotes