Hacker News Reader

It's not an attack if the majority of miners decide to use a specific implementation. That's how bitcoin works.

Most of the time it's unanimously agreed to follow the majority of minors. Everything runs smoothly.

When that's not agreed, preventing a fork requires some way of blocking the non-majority miners. That is an attack, and not just 'how bitcoin works'. Bitcoin has no builtin way of handling such disputes.

Why would it not be agreed to follow the majority of the miners? That's literally the whole basis of the blockchain. The chain with the most work wins. If you don't like it then you can make your own fork, nobody is going to care or try to stop you.

Because the different chains are abiding by different rules. Software A sees both chains as valid, while software B only sees the shorter chain as valid. The result is a conflict that cannot be easily resolved.

It's a human consensus problem. (And don't say that only the original version of the bitcoin rules are valid, or that would mean that bitcoin actually disintegrated years ago.)

Agreement by that definition is not a necessary condition, only a possible scenario. Majority hashpower is the built in way of handling disputes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com