<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1g6vxlp4e0nyhs2dqxxcryztyf5f5hyuaq93nw4r87zcnv0sdsa0qqsl5wd</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1g6vxlp4e0nyhs2dqxxcryztyf5f5hyuaq93nw4r87zcnv0sdsa0qqsl5wd</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2014-04-23&#xA;📝 Original message:Bitcoin has various checks and balances that help keep everything honest.&#xA;&#xA;Even if a pool had 60% of the hashing power, they couldn&#39;t reverse 6 blocks&#xA;without anyone noticing that it had happened.&#xA;&#xA;There are sites which monitor the blocks and estimate the percentage of the&#xA;blocks found by each pool.&#xA;&#xA;In a way, bitcoin doesn&#39;t depend on the majority of miners following the&#xA;protocol, it depends on miners believing that a majority of the other&#xA;miners will follow the protocol.&#xA;&#xA;If a miner has 5% of the hashing power and believes that the other 95% will&#xA;follow the protocol, then the system should be set up so that it is in that&#xA;miner&#39;s interests to follow the protocol too.&#xA;&#xA;This is why soft forks work.  The formal process convinces all the miners&#xA;that the new rules are locked in.&#xA;&#xA;In a system where miners can vote to cancel coinbases, each pool has an&#xA;incentive to vote to reject everyone else&#39;s blocks.&#xA;&#xA;Pools on the receiving end will be less profitable and lose customers.&#xA;&#xA;It is possible that &#34;predatory&#34; pools would lose hashing power as miners&#xA;switch to other pools, in protest.&#xA;&#xA;The proposal allows &#34;established&#34; pools to vote to disallow new entrants.&#xA;They could even justify it by saying that those pools haven&#39;t invested in&#xA;&#34;anti-double spending&#34; infrastructure.&#xA;&#xA;The proposal doesn&#39;t suddenly give the majority the ability to do it, but&#xA;it isn&#39;t clear that making the process less disruptive is a good thing.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Mike Hearn &lt;mike at plan99.net&gt; wrote:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; If you want to try and argue that the development list is the wrong place&#xA;&gt; to discuss development, please do so on another thread (or your blog).&#xA;&gt; Let&#39;s keep this thread for discussion of the original proposal - ideally,&#xA;&gt; discussed with the dryness that a topic as nerdy as distributed consensus&#xA;&gt; algorithms deserves ;)&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xA;&gt; Start Your Social Network Today - Download eXo Platform&#xA;&gt; Build your Enterprise Intranet with eXo Platform Software&#xA;&gt; Java Based Open Source Intranet - Social, Extensible, Cloud Ready&#xA;&gt; Get Started Now And Turn Your Intranet Into A Collaboration Platform&#xA;&gt; http://p.sf.net/sfu/ExoPlatform&#xA;&gt; _______________________________________________&#xA;&gt; Bitcoin-development mailing list&#xA;&gt; Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net&#xA;&gt; https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140423/2d0343ba/attachment.html&gt;</html></oembed>