Yesterday's article made some readers misunderstood, and today I reinterpret the logical relationship here.
Who is the real power of the Bitcoin world? This issue has been debated endlessly.
Some people think that the developer is the real power, because the code is the law, the code is the power; some people think that the miner is the real power, because the power is the power; some people think that the user is the real power; more even It is believed that exchanges and media are powers.
- A picture of bitcoin bifurcation history
- Bitcoin has been "forked" more than 100 times in two years, now how about those forks
- Bitcoin Bifurcation Main Cause: Extending Attacks Caused by ECDSA Algorithm Vulnerabilities
Today, from the perspective of mining, who is the real power of the Bitcoin world?
Relationship between developers, miners, and money-holding users
Yesterday, I liked to say that bitcoin is going to be black, and today I continue to use this metaphor. If Bitcoin is a road to the future, what is the relationship between developers, miners, and users?
The developer provides the code, which is equivalent to the engineer, provides the method of road construction, and the method of implementation; the miner buys the mining machine, is responsible for the specific execution, the road repair, the number of miners determines the firmness of the road (safety); the user uses this Road and pay for it.
1. It is easy to fork, there are many kinds of road repair procedures, and there are many roads.
Bitcoin code is open source, anyone can see the code on github, it is easy to fork, copy the code, modify the parameters, you can open up a new chain.
In 2017, the bifurcation tide of Bitcoin is like this. If you modify the parameters, you will fork out the new chain. Bit gold, super bits, infinite bits, and even bit gods are coming out. Anyone can split, Li Xiaolai can fork, and the second treasure also forks. Splitting out the new chain, as long as someone pays the bill, it is profitable. For a time, I feel that I don't fork, I don't cut the leek, it is the same as SB.
2. Miners are the builders of the road and can choose to work for different roads.
Miners are builders of all roads and are responsible for maintaining the safety of the road. Miners can choose to serve different routes, and profit is the deciding factor in determining the miner's service for that road. From an economic point of view, miners are driven by interests, and that road makes more money, so go to repair that road. The number of miners determines the degree of solidity of the roadbed and determines the safety of the system.
3. The key to determining whether the road can be repaired is whether there is any user paying the bill.
The holder of the coin is responsible for providing funds to allow the miners to build roads. That is, the user pays for the miners, and the number of users holding the currency determines the strength of the consensus. The consensus determines the price, and the price determines the profit level of the road construction. The level of profit determines the number of miners.
Now let's briefly sort out the relationship between the three: the developer provides the program, in which the holder of the currency is equivalent to the employer, the miner is hired to hire a miner, and the miner provides the service.
Holder users = employers
Developer = Engineer
Miner = hired worker
In the bitcoin world, miners are mainly responsible for bookkeeping, and for whom is the book? Keep accounts for currency users while maintaining system security.
Between the holder of the coin and the miner, it is essentially an employment relationship, and the miners are only migrant workers on this road. Miners get more work and more work, and rely on the amount of services provided to get the corresponding compensation.
There are more miners, and everyone gathers together to mine and form a mine pool. The mining pool is equivalent to the real "union" organization. Trade unions represent the interests of all miners. The more miners they have, the greater the power of unions. The power is huge, and the unions that are self-respecting are what we call "mines."
Of course, the miners also have the possibility of rebellion. The peasants can still rise up and the workers will rebel. The same is true for miners. When a certain union gathers a large number of miners, it provides a possibility for rebellion. When the miner's calculation power exceeds 51%, the entire system can be subverted and mine disasters occur.
Although the miner can rebel, he cannot be considered a real power because he has rebellious power. What really has power is the employer, and there is a trade-off between employers and employees.
The value of Bitcoin does not come from procedures, nor from mining, but from licensed users. We use the "consensus" to indicate the number of users holding money. The value of Bitcoin comes from consensus.
Consensus determines the size of demand, the relationship between supply and demand determines the price, the price determines the mining profit, the profit determines the size of the calculation, the size of the calculation determines the system security, and the safety promotes the system consensus. This is the value model of Bitcoin.
Consensus determines the power of calculation, and computing power determines system security. Among all the bitcoin forked chains, the most users, the strongest consensus, and the most powerful are the real bitcoins, and others will gradually go to the road of death.
Miners have voting rights and income rights?
The right to income, this is easy to understand, the miners pay for their own labor, get paid, this is a matter of righteousness, no one is obligated to work for you free of charge. The labor cost of the miners corresponds to the production cost, which is mainly composed of the energy consumed and the cost of the mining machine.
The employment relationship between the holder of the coin and the miner is completely related to the interest. This employment relationship is not contractual and very free. The miners can participate at any time and can leave at any time.
Miners have the right to choose to serve any chain, can mine in bitcoin, can mine in bit cash, can mine on any forked chain, from an economic point of view, economic benefits determine the miners Who is working, is this the so-called voting right?
Therefore, the miners only have the option to serve the chain, not the voting rights. Nor is it the chain that the miners choose the most to become a real bitcoin. This can be concluded by bitcoin bifurcation and bit cash fork.
From the economic model of Bitcoin, consensus determines the power of calculation, and consensus is the real determinant. The consensus is driven by the holder of the currency, and the user decides which chain is the real bitcoin.
If the chain user supports which chain, go buy the chain of coins, this is the so-called vote with the feet. Users exercise their voting rights by buying coins. The most votes have the most consensus. The most consensus determines the most computing power. The most computing power determines the most stable system and wins in this arms race.
Any developer can fork Bitcoin, and any miner has the option, but the real voting rights are always in the hands of the user.
You can fork Bitcoin, but the user can not recognize the currency you forked, so you only branch out the bit son, bit grandson, and the real bitcoin is determined by the user.
For the currency, you can fork at any time, but the fork is only a new chain, users can vote to support the old chain or the new chain.
CZ finds miners to discuss the problem is only to explore the possibility of technology to achieve rollback. But the fork can only solve the technical problem, and the new chain after the rollback should be recognized by everyone. This is a consensus issue.
The success of Ethereum's fork is because of the influence of V God, and a lot of consensus has been brought to the new chain, the new chain has the most consensus.
While CZ may be forked, the users of the coin are against it, so the rollback is bound to fail. Rollback is useless, and forks are useless. If you lose it, you lose it.
For the credit user, rollback is a farce. Just rolling back the word will appear in the mouth of a veteran player like Changpeng. It is really incredible, and I am really disappointed.
The fork is useless, why do we want to oppose the fork? Because the fork is split, the damage is the consensus, and the damage is the bitcoin value. Every time you split, you will take away some of the consensus and deeply hurt Bitcoin. Bitcoin forks out bit cash, bit cash splits out of BSV, and the consensus is gradually split. The community has been plunged into endless infighting.
Therefore, I will only say yesterday that the fork is feasible, not bad or stupid, and then there is porcelain.