Comment

Comment on Bitcoin mining is no longer profitable

Good point, with BIPs the Bitcoin community is more adaptive than I gave it credit for.

It still doesn’t prevent soft nor hard fork. My understanding is that a change in consensus logic require ALL users/miners need to deploy the new software to avoid hard forks. That’s impossible in practice. So a BIP to change the consensus logic would necessary cause a hard fork.

Not all chains handle this the same way nor suffer from this. Tezos for instance made its improvement proposal system part of its core. Using Tezos means automatically accepting chain and consensus logic change if they are approve.

Tezos incorporates a built-in, on-chain mechanism for proposing, selecting, testing, and activating protocol upgrades without the need to hard fork. This mechanism makes Tezos a self-amending blockchain and allows any user to propose changes to the economic protocol, which defines the possible blockchain operations and how they are processed.

Bitcoin sure have more hype and higher price, but appears to have more difficulty evolving compared to others.

source

Sort:hotnew top

locuester@lemmy.zip ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Texas would still require all nodes to upgrade to the code which contains the new algorithm. It can’t just automatically know what the new code is.

Its behavior is no different from other chains.

Bitcoin uses version bits to perform these types of upgrades (see bio 9 implemented in 2016)

Ethereum uses something similar. Solana’s activation mechanism is called “feature gate activation”.

source
- Hirom@beehaw.org ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  
  Tezos would still require all nodes to upgrade to the code which contains the new algorithm. It can’t just automatically know what the new code is. It then can schedule these to activate at a certain block using a signaling system of some sort.
  
  Code proposal, vote on new code activation of new code, are all Tezos on-chain operation. These operations include a hash of the new code to be deployed. There’s some off-chain work happening to update tools, which I guess include compiling said code. So you’re right, some off-cain action is needed for deployment www.tezosagora.org/learn#an-introduction-to-tezos…
  
  My understanding is that compared to BTC governance, a larger part of the process happen on-chain. Also there is a relatively smaller portion of nodes (baker) involved in creating/verifying blocks that must update. This allowed various protocol changes without forks over the years.
  
  source
  - locuester@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    It’s no different. A new version of the consensus code needs written and deployed.
    
    That page you linked is the same on all chains. All have a proposal, discussion, implementation, waiting period (for code to be deployed), and activation. That’s just blockchain 101
    
    source
    Hirom@beehaw.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    same on all chains. All have a proposal, discussion, implementation, waiting period (for code to be deployed), and activation
    
    I though most of those steps didn’t occur on-chain in the case of bitcoin. But I could be mistaken.
    
    Could you share a link with the equivalent information on bitcoin, ie its governance process and how each governance operation (proposal, vote, activation ) is handled by the chain?
    
    source