Comment by ascendantlogic | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ascendantlogic | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It is up to the consensus. If enough people opposed a release and were able to coordinate their own fork then they are still free to do so.

> The leadership can decide the rules of a new fork unless everyone else coordinate to oppose it?

You are 100% free to not install the latest upgrade on your node(s). Unless you have enough people who agree with you and coordinate their refusal to upgrade you will be a network of one that goes entirely unused. This is exactly how decentralization is supposed to work. You have to obtain some level of consensus to get anything done. This isn't a situation where "everyone" has too coordinate to oppose something, just "enough" people to form a fork that has enough hashpower/security to attract users. Even if a large enough minority of miners were able to coordinate a new chain, fork the code, make the necessary code changes and start their own version of Ethereum they still have to get people to use their network.

Sounds like 'you are in your right to opt out of our policies if you disagree with an upgrade, it will immediately terminate all of your mining'

And then saying that most people support you because only small percent of people opted-out

There are other evm compatible chains out there that people use: bsc, matic and avalanche c-chain come to mind.

They all on some level opted out of some of the assumptions in go-ethereum.

In think there's a subtle difference. A side effect of Bitcoin's rules is that people with more hashing power have a disproportionate amount of weight in deciding the future of the protocol. Eth solves this by putting a hard deadline on some replacement being chosen. This can be the current maintainer's updated fork, or it can be a fork someone made that's identical to eth today with the date pushed back a few more years.

95% of Bitcoin miners voted to increase the block size and it didn't happen, but you're right about the benefit of the ice age.

A thousand times this

You mean 95% by people, not by mining capacity, presumably. How is that determined, do you have a reference?

I don't know about 95%, but from https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/2x-or-no2x-why-some-wa...

> Over 90 percent of miners (by hash power) are currently signaling support for SegWit2x.

I believe he means 95% of miners and my memory tells me something similar.

At a certain point it was only blockstream and their reddit who really opposed bigger blocks, and it turns out that is sufficient to stifle Bitcoin progress.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/New_York_Agreement this was the era if you are looking to do research.

No, presumably I mean 95% of the hashrate which is the only thing that is measurable on-chain.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0009.mediawi...

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0091.mediawi...

How did you expect a decentralized, consensus-driven network to operate without some level of consensus? You think 1 node forks should be as viable as 10,000 node forks?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com