Destruction of the meta-consensus
Hey guys,
been (and still am) busy doing other stuff than Bitcoin. I have to feed
myself, among other things...
I have heard that people are working on a deliberate chain fork. I have also
heard that the plan is to activate coincident with SegWit activation.
I have to say, I like this approach, a lot!
Because it finishes and eventually lays bare the destruction of the
meta-consensus that has been started by Core's underhanded tactics.
The destruction of the meta consensus, and by meta consensus I mean the former
consensus about the rules on how to make rules, has been deliberately,
underhandedly, and manipulativly attacked by Core, yielding progressive
destruction.
Much like your typical, psychopathic, always bitching drama queen secretly
ruling your typical anarchist/feminist/socialist/whateverist 'alternative'
project (shared housing, occupy this and that and so forth) by insisting on an
ever-changing definition of consensus, the Core team has manipulated many in
the Bitcoin system to follow their idiocy. (And in the case of the
'alternative counter-culture projects', the way to win is simply not to
play. With Bitcoin, this kind of consensus-bullshit was introduced only
later...)
Activating a hard fork on SegWit activation lays bare the destruction of
meta consensus done by Core.
In former times, we had various gentlemen agreements in place, such as:
- Bitcoin can scale to VISA levels and the Satoshi white paper gives the
general direction
- 51% hash power majority selects the direction of Bitcoin
- Miners can vote on fork bits
All those were not baked - or only to a small extend - into the software
reality of the Bitcoin software. They were only agreements between reasonable
people. But of course, those agreements do not work between unreasonable
people!
By twisting words, shifting focus, and all the other methods from your
typical propaganda handbook, Core destroyed this meta consensus, along with
also destroying the formerly healthy Bitcoin community.
We all know examples of the attacks, working against the above meta
consensus. A far-from-exhaustive list:
- Bitcoin was never meant to scale to VISA levels (the classic 'repeat a lie
often enough and it becomes true')
- the soft-/hard fork distinction
- the 90%, 95%, ..., 99% 'consensus' talk
- confusing technical Nakamoto consensus (longest chain) with political
consensus
The last bit that remained of the meta consensus is an agreement upon the
meaning of fork bits. (By the way: Or is it remaining? Wasn't there actually a
re-interpretation by Core of some of the BIP109 bits already?)
Core and their followers like to say that 'Bitcoin is ruled by math' and that
'the software defines the consensus', yet the meta consensus about fork bits
is silently accepted when they cherish the utopia that is SegWit-activated
Bitcoin in their minds.
Making activation of bigger blocks coincident with SegWit is destroying this
last bit of meta consensus. Core will no doubt argue that those who do so 'are
unfairly muddying the waters' and/or that there is some kind of meta consensus
in place (regardless on how ridiculous that sounds) that 'Core is the
consensus implementation, and so Core's fork bit interpretation is right'.
It is applying the same tactics that Core used for so long and slings them
right back at them.
Because SegWit is a
change that core wants, and it serves them right that
their own tactics are starting to backfire.
Core can no longer evade and apply the soft-/hard fork distraction, nor can
they push SegWit and successfully argue that it is somehow non-controversial.
The much feared ossification of Bitcoin (AFAIR our beloved Adam Back was
one of those fearing it) is thus accelerated.
However, I am certain that ossification at this level and with the 1MB
ridiculousness in place can not last forever.
And simple majority considerations will be the only path out of this quagmire.
Exactly what most reasonable big-block proponents have said since the
beginning should be the modus operandi for decision making.
And in any case, with any fork, the earlier Bitcoin ledger is preserved. That
is what any long-term Bitcoin holder cares about, in the end. I can only see
that happening with a high-volume ledger, and such a fork - successful in the
end or not - will increase the likelihood of that result.
--
That all said, let me finally also congratulate everyone to the funding of BU and
towards making this a non-profit org!
I really have to do some catch up now with all the news. Also,
@solex, I got
your PMs. Let me first and foremost say that you (and everyone else around BU) is
doing an absolutely awesome job.
I unfortunately won't be at any conference any time soon.
--
And after skimming through the last couple dozen pages on this thread:
@Justus Ranvier : I think the defense against a soft fork is exactly as
above. 'Escalate' it to a hard fork and thus show how ridiculous the whole
idea of separating soft-/ and hard-fork is anyways.
@freetrader: Nice observation, your consensus level graph
