lol it can’t adjust on public approval. It’s software that runs.
It can. Software is written by people. Its authors can build it with an update mechanism.
Crypto currencies such as Tezos have a vote-based update mechanism and a community that periodically submits algorithm changes for approval.
Bitcoin doesn’t have a update mechanism that allows smooth changes. Its take it or leave it (aka hard fork). Peole can move away from it, and it’s sad that so many still haven’t.
It’s the same with all the chains. An algorithm change is a breaking change. If you don’t implement it, your validating node will not continue with the rest.
Bitcoin has the BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal) process. BIP-52 is an example of a proposal to change the algorithm due to energy concerns.
If the humans reach consensus it will change. However, I maintain that software can’t be programmed to adjust for social concerns - the humans have to change it.
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 Bitcoin’s consensus logic require ALL users/miners to take action to deploy the new software to avoid hard forks. That’s impossible in practice. So a BIP to change the consensus logic, either tweaking or replacing PoW, would necessary cause a hard fork even if it’s approved.
Not all chains handle this the same way nor suffer from this. For instance, using Tezos means automatically accepting algorithm changes after they are approved. This makes hard forks much less likely.
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.
If some nodes didn’t upgrade, this would cause a hard fork if the version they are running doesn’t have the new version required to run the new algorithm
Its behavior and process as outlined in the link you sent is no different from other chains.
Bitcoin uses version bits to perform these types of upgrades (see bip 9 implemented in 2016)
Ethereum uses something similar. Solana’s activation mechanism is called “feature gate activation”.
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 https://www.tezosagora.org/learn#an-introduction-to-tezos-governance
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.
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
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.
Would you mind sharing 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?
I’m looking at BIP-1. It explains how to submit a proposal via mailing list and versioned repository, ie off-chain.
Also looking at BIP-9. It does rely on the chain for governance, and allow polling for the most popular soft-fork. But it focus on exclusively on testing soft forks, which severely limit its usefulness.
allowing multiple backward-compatible changes (further called “soft forks”) to be deployed in parallel.
It seems BIP-9 doesn’t provide a solution to propose/vote/activate the larger non-backward-compatible changes, ie doesn’t help prevent hard forks. And big social and environmental issues affecting bitcoin probably require such large change.
It can. Software is written by people. Its authors can build it with an update mechanism.
Crypto currencies such as Tezos have a vote-based update mechanism and a community that periodically submits algorithm changes for approval.
Bitcoin doesn’t have a update mechanism that allows smooth changes. Its take it or leave it (aka hard fork). Peole can move away from it, and it’s sad that so many still haven’t.
It’s the same with all the chains. An algorithm change is a breaking change. If you don’t implement it, your validating node will not continue with the rest.
Bitcoin has the BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal) process. BIP-52 is an example of a proposal to change the algorithm due to energy concerns.
If the humans reach consensus it will change. However, I maintain that software can’t be programmed to adjust for social concerns - the humans have to change it.
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 Bitcoin’s consensus logic require ALL users/miners to take action to deploy the new software to avoid hard forks. That’s impossible in practice. So a BIP to change the consensus logic, either tweaking or replacing PoW, would necessary cause a hard fork even if it’s approved.
Not all chains handle this the same way nor suffer from this. For instance, using Tezos means automatically accepting algorithm changes after they are approved. This makes hard forks much less likely.
Bitcoin sure have more hype and higher price, but appears to have more difficulty evolving compared to others.
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. If some nodes didn’t upgrade, this would cause a hard fork if the version they are running doesn’t have the new version required to run the new algorithm
Its behavior and process as outlined in the link you sent is no different from other chains.
Bitcoin uses version bits to perform these types of upgrades (see bip 9 implemented in 2016)
Ethereum uses something similar. Solana’s activation mechanism is called “feature gate activation”.
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 https://www.tezosagora.org/learn#an-introduction-to-tezos-governance
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.
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
I though most of those steps didn’t occur on-chain in the case of bitcoin. But I could be mistaken.
Would you mind sharing 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?
I’m looking at BIP-1. It explains how to submit a proposal via mailing list and versioned repository, ie off-chain.
Also looking at BIP-9. It does rely on the chain for governance, and allow polling for the most popular soft-fork. But it focus on exclusively on testing soft forks, which severely limit its usefulness.
It seems BIP-9 doesn’t provide a solution to propose/vote/activate the larger non-backward-compatible changes, ie doesn’t help prevent hard forks. And big social and environmental issues affecting bitcoin probably require such large change.