Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

"Why has the capacity limit not been raised? Because the block chain is controlled by Chinese miners"

The author is complaining that Bitcoin is working exactly as designed.

From Satoshi's paper: "Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it."

If you want to raise the block size, out-vote the Chinese miners.

You cannot simply out-vote the Chinese miners on the issue of the so-called protocol: you need to convince the Bitcoin "economic majority" to accept a change to the codebase that everyone uses to verify the blockchain, otherwise you're effectively mining a very expensive altcoin which no merchants or exchanges accept. (An altcoin is a cryptocurrency that generally captures every feature of Bitcoin except being called Bitcoin.)

The economic majority on Bitcoin has basically said "We're terrified of what happens if we de-throne Bitcoin Core, which is the lineal descendant of the Satoshi client. Accordingly, we'll go along with whatever that project decides." The problems with Bitcoin Core's decisionmaking process are in the post. Worth noting, since I don't recall seeing it: Bitcoin Core is operated by "consensus" with respect to this issue and any of five devs can blackball a change; three of the devs work for a company whose economic justification for existing is "the Bitcoin network is inadequate to do the things that many users want Bitcoin to do." Fixing Bitcoin Core would harm their economic interests at the new company they founded.

Why be terrified of de-throning Bitcoin Core? Isn't it a protocol with multiple competing implementations? NO, because the "Bitcoin protocol" does not exist -- Bitcoin is a network of nodes running one C++ codebase and that is essentially the entire ballgame. Bitcoin's requirement for distributed consensus means that if you are not bug-for-bug compatible with Bitcoin Core, which runs a supermajority of the network, you risk being catastrophically forked from the network at any time of an attacker's choosing.

Also, the scenario where some economic players remain on Bitcoin Core and some economic players migrate to Bitcoin Better, followed by a hard fork (irreconcilable split of the blockchains regarded as authoritative by these two incompatible software ecosystems), results in loss of the global non-technical consensus in what a "Bitcoin" actually is. You'll find that your "Bitcoins" might not be actually useable at a merchant who accepts "Bitcoins." You might find a payment made to you in "Bitcoins", which your wallet says happened, has not actually happened according to your payment processor. Cats and dogs living together; catastrophe happens; the price of Bitcoin Core coins and Bitcoin Better coins both approaches the natural value of Bitcoin, which is zero.

> otherwise you're effectively mining a very expensive altcoin which no merchants or exchanges accept.

This is not the case. You could run XT for example and remain compatible, which was precisely its adoption strategy? It just simply did not reach consensus (aka CPU power).

> By mining with Bitcoin XT you will produce blocks with a new version number. This indicates to the rest of the network that you support larger blocks. When 75% of the blocks are new-version blocks, a decision has been reached to start building larger blocks that will be rejected by Bitcoin Core nodes.

(from https://bitcoinxt.software/)

That's BitcoinXT's protocol, sure, but that isn't Bitcoin Core's "protocol", so the powers that be can simply say "We do not accept your attempt to reject our reality and substitute your own."

The powers that be are the CPUs. If XT had reached its goal of 75% mining votes by versioning blocks, today it'd be what you call the "protocol".

But who calls it the protocol? Let's pretend this fork happens. Someone goes to bitcoin.org and download the software called bitcoin and runs it, and they won't be using that protocol.

Yes but as the article said some(s) started DDOSing or otherwise applying pressure to those who chose XT. That's on top of the fear of a long running fork in the blockchain.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact