pull down to refresh

Consensus rules are enough for Bitcoin to succeed or Bitcoin failsdelvingbitcoin.org/t/response-to-pieter-wuilles-stackexchange-answer-re-nuking-the-opreturn-filter/1991/11
2288 sats \ 6 comments \ @Scoresby 9h 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.
write
preview
related posts
144 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker 8h
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
reply
30 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 8h
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.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 8h
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.
reply
132 sats \ 1 reply \ @sudonaka 6h
Then why did Satoshi enable mempool filters in 2010?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby OP 5h
Because they were convenient. Filters are fine for discouraging science experiments, but not as useful for changing consensus.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @035736735e 4h
Subtract until what's left is unbreakable. That's the playbook for everything from protocols to products...
reply