Technology

38603 readers

608 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

coldredlight@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

184

Bitcoin mining is no longer profitable (www.pcworld.com)

submitted 4 days ago by Hirom@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

74 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] locuester@lemmy.zip 0 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

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.