Bitcoin Cash Developers on "Nakamoto Consensus"
Recently there has been a lot of discussion in the Bitcoin Cash community about a coming "hash war" during coming November upgrade.
The idea of a hash war comes from one interpretation of Nakamoto Consensus as describer in the whitepaper: "They (the miners) vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism"
Nakamoto consensus is widely to believed to determine the outcome of the coming November hard fork between the two opposing Bitcoin Cash implementations. BitcoinSV and Bitcoin ABC.
In theory the implementation who has the most hash power backing it wins in the end, and enforces the new rule set for the upgraded BCH chain. But this is only in theory, as this consensus mechanism has yet to be used. And It may never be according to some of the Bitcoin Cash developers.
In a recent Q&A that featured multiple Bitcoin Cash developers. A question was directed to the BitcoinABC team (time-stamped video above):
"Why did Bitcoin ABC argue against using Nakamoto consensus as the governance model for BCH in the upcoming fork at the Bangkok meeting?"
To which Johnathan Toomim promptly answers:
"Because it doesn't work! Nakamoto Consensus would work for a soft fork but not a hard fork. You cant use a hash war to resolve this issue!
If you have different hard forking rule sets you are going to have a persistent chain split no matter what the hash rate distribution is.
whether or not we are willing to use Nakamoto consensus to resolve issues is not the issue right here. what the issue is, is that it is technically impossible."
Toomim's answer is quickly followed by Amaury Sachet:
"If you have an incompatible chain set you get a permanent chain split no matter what. Also I think that Nakamoto Consensus is probably quite misunderstood. People would do well to actually re-read the whitepaper on that front.
What the Nakamoto consensus describes generally is gonna be miners starting to enforce different rule sets and everybody is going to reorg into the longest chain. This is to decide among changes that are compatible with each other. Because if they are not compatible with each other nobody is going to reorg into any chain, and what you get is two chains. Nakamoto consensus can not resolve that!"
Toomim follows with the final comment:
"Nakamoto Consensus in the whitepaper is about determining which of several valid history's of transaction ordering is the true canonical ordering and which transactions are approved and confirmed and which ones are not. It is not for determining which rule sets!
The only decision Nakamoto Consensus is allowed to make, is on which of the various types of blocks or block contents (that would be valid according to the rule set) is the true history."
1 of 2 reviewers say it's worth paying for
1 of 2 reviewers say it's not worth paying for