As we approach the scheduled network upgrade for November 2018, there is some debate in the community over the meaning of “longest chain proof of work” with respect to chain splits, Nakamoto consensus, and the Bitcoin whitepaper. I think that some people are getting this wrong.
“So its interesting the different camps. One does not believe that longest POW should decide rules like the whitepaper says, and the others think they can just make whatever rules they want without doing Proof of Work, and everyone must follow. I think if we are just going to have one developer group decide everything and keep the ticker, then maybe Bitcoin is broken.”
From a different thread, Here is another comment
“An honourable hash war rather than minPOW chain stealing the bitcoin brand”
I understand the motivation of these arguments; some people would like hashpower to resolve the dispute between the various BCH factions. And perhaps it may. But to assume it necessarily should do that (and to express indignation if it doesn’t) shows a misunderstanding of the Bitcoin system. This attitude stems from beliefs that:
a.) Bitcoin is defined by facts rather than opinions b.) The longest chain necessarily defines Bitcoin c.) The white paper states that the longest chain determines outcome of a consensus split
These are all false, as I will explain.

Bitcoin Facts Vs. Opinions

Let’s be clear on one thing: Individuals are going to disagree about Bitcoin. Some people say “Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin”... some say “Bitcoin Cash is effectively Bitcoin”... others say “Bitcoin is Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin Cash”. Still others believe BCH is an alt or even a scam.
Jameson Lopp (despite being a small blocker) said it best: “You may define what Bitcoin is to yourself. You may not define what Bitcoin is to others without their consent.”
The obvious irony of a BCH supporter (which is a minority chain of BTC) attempting to define Bitcoin strictly based on hashpower is comical. I have seen this contradiction defended with the explanation that the BCH/BTC split was ideologically very clear, but in the case of 2 similar versions of a "peer to peer electronic cash system", then we must look to hashpower. I find this reasoning to be faulty. “Bitcoin is the longest chain that’s still a p2p cash system” is not necessarily less opinionated than any other definition, even if people could agree on the exact requirements for that system.
If there is a split of the ecosystem, folks on either side have their own reasons for believing their side is more legitimate. One important reason for valuing a fork is the community that supports it. However, the reasons could be just about anything and are therefore irrelevant to the fact that people can and will disagree about what is Bitcoin to them.
Since the definition (or the interpretation of the definition) of Bitcoin is a matter of opinion rather than fact, it therefore follows that the longest chain proof of work does not define Bitcoin for everyone.

Three Kinds of Chain Splits

You may reject the premise that Bitcoin isn't defined objectively; for example the whitepaper may be deemed authoritative. But even what the whitepaper says is misinterpreted. But before we can analyze it, we need to differentiate between different types of chain splits.
In the first scenario, there is only one set of network consensus rules. In this context, a chain split occurs when two miners find a block at roughly the same time, and each winning miner is able to broadcast their block to about half the network. Each fragmented part of the network will then continue to mine until they find a block. Eventually, one group will outpace the others, which will cause the shorter chain to be orphaned and the network will be re-united. This is mostly what the whitepaper describes.
In the second scenario, there are 2 or more sets of competing network rules. In this context, blocks on one network will be invalid on another, causing a permanent divergence of the ledger. For lack of a better phrase, we can call this a “consensus chain split”.
A third imaginable scenario is that we have a consensus chain splits but the minority capitulates at some point and abandons their chain.

Meaning of “The Longest Chain” in the Whitepaper

First, what does the whitepaper NOT say? It never says anything like: “if there is a disagreement in Bitcoin, then miners compete with Hashpower, and whoever builds the longest chain is entitled to call themselves the true Bitcoin.” (This is what certain redditors seem to believe).
Perhaps Satoshi never envisioned competing chains to begin with. In any case, I will repeat the observation that different people will have different opinions about all of this.
Let’s see what the whitepaper actually says.
In the Abstract section: “The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers”.
This section definitely seems to be referring to the first type of chain split that I described. It talks about miners competing on transaction ordering and resolving the original double-spend dilemma which Bitcoin solves.
In section 4, “Proof of Work”, it states: “The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains. To modify a past block, an attacker would have to redo the proof-of-work of the block and all blocks after it and then catch up with and surpass the work of the honest nodes.”
This is again referring mostly to transaction ordering, and also the security aspect of Proof of Work. It could refer to a consensus chain split, but even in that context, all it really says is that the majority decision is represented by the longest chain. This does not necessarily imply any divine right to the Bitcoin name, the ticker symbol, the community, or anything else.
If anything, the idea that the economic majority should follow hashrate is backwards. We know that hash follows price, both logically and by observing the behavior of BCH/BTC mining ratios. This behavior is more a property of the Bitcoin system rather than a matter of opinion.
Finally, in the conclusion of the paper: “They 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.”
The key words here are “valid” and “invalid”. Nowhere does the white paper say that the majority has dominion over what is valid.


Bitcoin is an economic system and a social experiment. The honey badger doesn’t really care what your personal opinion is. You can have the best arguments in the world for what you think people should believe or support, but at the end of the day, the market and reality will decide what will happen.
Markets can be irrational, people can be irrational; this does not mean Bitcoin is broken. At least, not for me.


11 of 11 reviewers say it's worth paying for

0 of 11 reviewers say it's not worth paying for
  earned 20.0¢
Bitcoin is a system, its actually 2 systems in 1, and it has been defined in the Bitcoin white paper.
Bitcoin is not an economic system at all, it is a system of decentralised creation of money, which uses one type of economic system (which 99.9% of people are still clueless about) and it is also a decentralised P2P payment system.
The production of bitcoins is only temporary and once this ceases, it will remain as decentralised payment system only.
The longest proof of work chain is a last measure used if, and only if, all other measurements of both chains are valid, which when it comes to BTC and BCH, are all valid for BCH but are not all valid for BTC, which means that longest proof of work measure no longer applies as BTC failed the primary measures and BCH didn't.
Bitcoin is a system and rules of this system are factually outlined in the white paper. What that Jameson Lopp guys says is not a factual thing as to what is Bitcoin, it is just subjective opinions of people who don't understand a damn thing about it, and also excuse used by the people who try to sabotage it (and Jameson Lopp is one of those saboteurs).
   3wk ago
10.0¢ 15.0¢ 25.0¢
  earned 10.0¢
Great article. I would love to see your take on a different question: What is actually going to happen in November?
   3wk ago
  earned 45.0¢
"Jameson Lopp (despite being a small blocker) said it best: “You may define what Bitcoin is to yourself. You may not define what Bitcoin is to others without their consent.”"
No, not despite, but because he's a small blocker, Lopp made the socialist, subjective-morality argument that everything is subjective.
You define Bitcoin by the whitepaper that defined it. Its just that simple.
Add Segwit? Not Bitcoin
Change TX ordering and add pre-consensus? Not Bitcoin
   3wk ago
15.0¢ 25.0¢ 10.0¢ 25.0¢
  spent 15.0¢
Nobody knows that will happen in November, because this is Bitcoin.
But it seems most likely the majority of nodes running ABC 0.17 will upgrade to 0.18
There is code in 0.17 that makes 0.17 stop working in november, forcing an upgrade or a switch to different node software.
BU and XT will have software ready that is compatible with the changes in 0.18 Nchain/Coingeek don't have enough hashrate to force the rest to play by their rules because companies like Bitmain have huge interest in BCH and they will defend those by moving hashrate from BTC to BCH if they have too. 5% hash on BTC is 50% on BCH. Personally I am worried that bad shit is going to happen with Tether at the same time as the november fork will be around. I feel like CSW is just a big distraction (similar to how Trump is one). Tether has an insane amount of influence over the price, and the price controls everything else. This market is not free enough until Tether is gone but the price paid for that might be great loss of capital of the BCH community.
   3wk ago
  spent 15.0¢
I'd also like to see how you think relying transactions on both forks after an attempted split, impacts each fork.
   3wk ago
  earned 25.0¢
>Lopp made the socialist, subjective-morality argument that everything is subjective.
Not exactly; Obviously a banana isn't Bitcoin but people do have different opinions.
>You define Bitcoin by the whitepaper that defined it. Its just that simple By that reasoning, neither BCH nor BTC is Bitcoin since the whitepaper didn't discuss op codes.
   3wk ago
  spent 5.0¢
@Kain_niaK that code can be worked around with a single config-file setting. (tweet)
@Jonald_Fyookball Thanks for another good level-headed article. I ended up having some discussions on that reddit sub as well. I'll copy some stuff I wrote before. I think it backs your story and continues your points quite smoothly.
The "best chain" is decided by the market. Miners don't make the market, the market makes the market. The miners are just people that mine what the market wants. Or, in other words, miners need to know what the people want in order to give it to them. And if they predict wrong, they lose money because the chain loses value.
Miners follow the market (the money, the people that invest, the companies that invest time and money).
The people that make up "the market" are not going to really have a strong opinion on the upcoming hardforks and which chain will be the one they like best (voting with money, not social capital) because none of the options has been selling their changes very well. There is no technical basis to compare, there is only social media. Politics.
If I want political money, I'll switch to Fiat, I'll stick to "no-fork-november", thanks.
   3wk ago
15.0¢ 10.0¢
  spent 5.0¢
Perhaps we are just being impatient?
Who expects both BTC and BCH to exist 10 years from now?
Maybe both survive for the time being because hash power owners are still hedging their bets. Many are only reluctantly beginning to own their responsibility for making decisions in support of long term profitability.
The present situation is unstable. The majority hash power refrains from crushing BCH at least in part because of uncertainty. BCH does have an excellent argument in favor of being more nearly the bitcoin described in the white paper AND (post stress test) demonstrably a viable scaling plan. While the market supports BTC with elevated, socially engineered valuations both will survive. Once the uncertainty is resolved, only one will remain.
As to any fork that may occur in November? The outcome is likely to be very different from August 2017. Market participants are much more engaged and have much less incentive to support minority chains.
Ultimately history WILL associate the name Bitcoin with the longest chain.
Just be patient.
   3wk ago
15.0¢ 10.0¢
  earned 0.0¢
A simple thought experiment to demonstrate that majority hashpower does not determine the ticker symbol:
Imagine the US government turned on enough miners to get 51% of the hashpower. They announce, "In November, we're changing the rules to such-and-such, because we have the most hash..."
Is their coin + new changes entitled to the name "Bitcoin Cash" with the ticker BCH? Of course not. It's more complicated than that.
   3wk ago
  spent 15.0¢
Perhaps Satoshi never envisioned competing chains to begin with.
I indeed think he did not. The main reason for that thought is that under the Bitcoin BTC difficulty adjustment mechanism, it would be very hard for a minority chain to survive. Bitcoin BCH changed that with the EDA and now the DAA in order to be able to cope with this situation. Without EDA, BCH wouldn't have survived August 2017.
That said, I really hope that we go to a situation soon where miners vote for the implementation of an individual BCIP instead of the current "take it or leave it" approach for the upgrades.
   3wk ago