I did not say that it is equal to a 51% attack in all ways. Whilst what you say is true, a 51% fork is also an attack. Anything which causes a blockchain split, especially one that is this severe, should be seen and treated as an attack.
I really don’t see why a hard fork is an attack. It is a divergence in the protocols. With a hard fork, untenable tensions of disagreement, which don’t allow a consensus of second order (that is, a *protocol consensus*, not a block chain consensus within a given protocol), are relieved.
I think you should reconsider your stance on this. This is a really vague definition of consensus. On the other side, I’ve seen people who claim that even if 99% of the network agrees on new rules in a hard fork, that it would still be an altcoin (which is an extremist and absurd stance).
Consensus is not a pre-defined term, it is a dynamically emerging phenomenon. Like the term “melting”. Melting happens, when a physical solid, which gets its solidity from the molecular interactions that “keep molecules on average in place”, transitions to a liquid, where the same forces are not able any more to keep them in place, but can still keep them “at short range”. Evaporation occurs when these forces are even not able any more to keep them in place.
As such, “melting” and “evaporating” are emergent properties of the fact that there are inter-molecular forces, and that there are thermal movements. There’s no point in defining abstractly what you would consider “melting”. It is a phenomenon that occurs, and you give it a name. The dynamical model of the physics behind it EXPLAINS the phenomenon. But inventing a name for another phenomenon that doesn’t happen, is meaningless.
As such, “consensus” is the name one gives to the fact that in a trustless, distributed system, the initially set out rules remain valid, and the recorded history is not modified. But up to what point ? What is the *dynamical model* that is supposed to EXPLAIN this consensus phenomenon ?
The dynamical model is that there are sufficiently diverse and numerous actors in the system, each of which *would like to modify the rules to suit his wishes and advantages* that they cannot come to an agreement over WHAT changes should apply. As such, the ONLY thing they can agree on, is to keep the rules as they are, to keep the history as it is. This was the original motivation to even launch a trustless, distributed system that would nevertheless impose the respect of its rules (which is necessary to induce a monetary belief system in the first place: if the rules can change every day, nobody is going to believe in the monetary value). So “consensus” is the name of this phenomenon. It cannot be defined more accurately than the knowledge we have of the phenomenon, and there’s no use in defining it otherwise, because any *other* definition is naming a non-existent phenomenon. Like you better define “melting” as what really happens when a solid melts.
Given the initial model of consensus, which seems to describe quite accurately what it has done until now, I *presume* that it will act similarly on the block size.
The market cap splits according to how “people vote with their money”. No-one actually loses money, because you are double coin holder at the fork. And now, two coins exist, with different protocols, each according to their communities.
Depends on how you view the importance of the economy. Do you prioritize, i.e. value more a large capitalist or do you value a higher quantity of economically involved people? For example, Roger Ver probably has as much bitcoin as several thousands other users.
There is no “preference” to have. The dynamics is what it will be. Your question is like “do you prefer a high or a low oil market price ?”. There will be an oil market price, emerging from offer and demand. There’s not to be decided “what it should be”.
Published at Fri, 10 Mar 2017 10:05:47 +0000
[wpr5_ebay kw=”bitcoin” num=”1″ ebcat=”” cid=”5338043562″ lang=”en-US” country=”0″ sort=”bestmatch”]{flickr|100|campaign}
