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."

 

$1.50
5.0¢

Reviews
1 of 2 reviewers say it's worth paying for

1 of 2 reviewers say it's not worth paying for

Comments
  earned 75.0¢
Toomim is contradicting the whitepaper. "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. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism." This is quite explicit. Yet Toomim says: "It is not for determining which rule sets!" I don't think the contradiction is problematic for Toomim, though. "Nakamoto Consensus doesn't work". That is not something I've heard other developers say, and it is something that I believe he is categorically wrong about. In fact, we have yet to actually test Nakamoto Consensus in any consequential way. "Compatibility" is not discussed because it is implicit that there exists one outcome. Democrats and Republicans don't cast their votes with the expectation that a bill is passed for just a percentage of the country.
75.0¢
   1yr ago
25.0¢ 25.0¢ 25.0¢
  earned 11.0¢
@TheBCHBoys
"by refusing to work on them"
"There will be no split"
Choose one.
There will be a split, unless someone is willing to work on a chain they think is invalid.
11.0¢
   1yr ago
10.0¢ 1.0¢
  earned 0.0¢
Split is inevitable. It could even become a three-way fork.
There will exist (for any version) some number of miners will not abandon a chain that still has market value (and DAA...) and a visible market supporting it.
There will be enough personalities on all three sides of this issue lacking the credible psychodynamics to compromise in any meaningful manner. These personalities have enough sociophysical traction to power at least two of the three markets that this fork creates.
It would be poignant if the weakest chain has the most market support, but it should be recognized this may actually occur.
0.0¢
   1yr ago
  earned 0.0¢
The side with enough hash power temporarily adopts the changes to the other "fork" and mines empty blocks
0.0¢
   1yr ago
  earned 0.0¢
@TheBCHBoys I think the problem with these kinds of debates is that some people seem to be arguing for what should be and others are arguing about how the system works in actuality. I think you would agree that if some miners just choose to mine different ruleset from other miners, there will be a split, regardless of how many people believe that the whitepaper is advocating otherwise.
0.0¢
   1yr ago
  earned 0.0¢
Do all you guys in the comments actually want to see a split? Please find me a single person supporting BCH that actually wants this to happen.
This would be the absolute worse case scenario for all parties (merchants, developers, miners) because now we have to go talk to people outside the space and merchants and explain why B(xx) coin is 'Bitcoin'. This would be disastrous and set us back yet again in terms of mass adoption from the separation from Core.
This is the reason we will not have one IMO - because a split is in no one's best interest.
Well, except in maybe one's who creates miners for every coin under the sun....
0.0¢
   1yr ago
  earned 25.0¢
Hashpower can create, it can also destroy. A chain that has hash dedicated to mining empty blocks and reorging the chain, kills it. No exchange will touch such a chain. If you have enough hash you can destroy a minority chain, even if it has replay added.
Hash is how miners vote in Bitcoin, well, they can vote to kill a chain, too.
25.0¢
   1yr ago
25.0¢
  earned 0.0¢
Just nonsense article, ideologize for ABC chain viability
0.0¢
   1yr ago
  earned 0.0¢
We'd like to see the governance model implemented on BCH the one that is referenced in the whitepaper. Any other governance model doesn't interest us, as it's not Bitcoin.
0.0¢
   1yr ago
  earned 0.0¢
I want to see a split. and see craig and calvin fuck off. They add no value to the ecosystem. this is all about patents. Nchain has invested million in patents that are obsolete with DSV. Too fucking bad.
0.0¢
   1yr ago
  earned 0.0¢
A split will happen, but it will be temporary.
The majority miners will not allow the minority miners/chain to steal the value away from the main chain, as it destroys the incentives of the system, hence the final sentence in the WP.
The majority miners are incentivized to mine on the minority chain temporarily with their dominant hash rate only to reject blocks to kill that chain.
In this situation, no exchanges would touch it. There would be no market for a minority chain, thus the minority miners would mine themselves into bankruptcy.
Bitcoin was created to use economic incentives to ensure its survival.
Killing the minority chain to bring value under only the main chain is exactly what the what the WP implies.
Fragmentation assures Bitcoins future death.
Its time that people start to understand that economics drive this whole system.
0.0¢
   1yr ago
10.0¢ 25.0¢