1/2
One CPU, One vote
The bitcoin whitepaper (Wright, 2008, p. 3) notes that proof of work is “essentially one CPU one vote”. Unfortunately, for many, this has been falsely misconstrued out of context as a system providing democratic rights to all participants in the network. However, this majority decision is not democratic. The nature of proof of work and the limitations of the system don’t provide a majority decision for users but rather a majority for commercial nodes. It is not one vote per IP address or machine but rather one vote per unit of investment that decides the ordering of transactions. Additionally, this methodology doesn’t allow for protocol changes.[1]
Further error is to assume complete autonomy. The longest chain represents the majority decision, but the error assuming that each node must follow this is to ignore the right for a node to follow what the node operator sees as the longest chain of valid transactions. Where a node believes that the chain is invalid, the node operator can manually override the system and select the alternative chain. As the proof of work section in the whitepaper notes, if “the majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains”.[2] Consequently, the argument that a node must automatically follow the longest chain is invalid. Node operators decide what they believe is the honest chain and risk losing profit in the short term to ensure the honesty of the network, which increases their profit in the long-term.
[1] Set in stone
[2] Ibid. p. 3.
The whitepaper references both honest and competing chains.[1] Hence, the argument that the system must be automated and that node operators cannot decide to risk losing profit by following the longest chain in seeking to build on the chain without double-spent transactions or other attacks are in error. The whitepaper notes that nodes vote with their CPU power. Nodes accept or reject valid blocks by working on extending and rejecting invalid blocks. Hence, the argument that the system must be automated can be easily falsified. Computers don’t make decisions. Human agency is required if the expression of acceptance or rejecting a block is to be incorporated into the system. Computers don’t vote; humans do.
[1] Ibid.
The argument that nodes must blindly follow the longest chain ignores the section of the White Paper defining bitcoin and setting the unilateral contract that allows nodes to decide what the node operator believes is the honest and correct chain. While nodes do not need to be identified, they remain identifiable because of proof of work. In particular, a large node with sufficient CPU power to determine a network change is visible and easily identifiable. The only way to confirm the absence of a transaction is to be aware of the transaction, and hence this requires the public announcement of all transactions in the system.[1] Through this process, the nodes come to an agreement on a single history of the order of transactions received across the network. Each node operator may only trust the information they have independently obtained. The timestamp cannot be trusted, and only the receipt of a transaction can prove the time ordering.
[1] Ibid. p. 2.
So, I'm sorry for those individuals who like to believe that bitcoin acts without human intervention but machines do not make decisions, people do.
At any point in the Bitcoin White Paper where it discusses the voting or decision-making processes, the White Paper is referencing a human operator making a human decision.
In section 4 on pagge 3 of my paper,, I reference that a majority of CPU power when controlled by honest nodes will grow the honest chain faster than the competing chains.
CSW
Aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628584004442500?thread_ts=1628584004.442500&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2858
One CPU, One vote
The bitcoin whitepaper (Wright, 2008, p. 3) notes that proof of work is “essentially one CPU one vote”. Unfortunately, for many, this has been falsely misconstrued out of context as a system providing democratic rights to all participants in the network. However, this majority decision is not democratic. The nature of proof of work and the limitations of the system don’t provide a majority decision for users but rather a majority for commercial nodes. It is not one vote per IP address or machine but rather one vote per unit of investment that decides the ordering of transactions. Additionally, this methodology doesn’t allow for protocol changes.[1]
Further error is to assume complete autonomy. The longest chain represents the majority decision, but the error assuming that each node must follow this is to ignore the right for a node to follow what the node operator sees as the longest chain of valid transactions. Where a node believes that the chain is invalid, the node operator can manually override the system and select the alternative chain. As the proof of work section in the whitepaper notes, if “the majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains”.[2] Consequently, the argument that a node must automatically follow the longest chain is invalid. Node operators decide what they believe is the honest chain and risk losing profit in the short term to ensure the honesty of the network, which increases their profit in the long-term.
[1] Set in stone
[2] Ibid. p. 3.
The whitepaper references both honest and competing chains.[1] Hence, the argument that the system must be automated and that node operators cannot decide to risk losing profit by following the longest chain in seeking to build on the chain without double-spent transactions or other attacks are in error. The whitepaper notes that nodes vote with their CPU power. Nodes accept or reject valid blocks by working on extending and rejecting invalid blocks. Hence, the argument that the system must be automated can be easily falsified. Computers don’t make decisions. Human agency is required if the expression of acceptance or rejecting a block is to be incorporated into the system. Computers don’t vote; humans do.
[1] Ibid.
The argument that nodes must blindly follow the longest chain ignores the section of the White Paper defining bitcoin and setting the unilateral contract that allows nodes to decide what the node operator believes is the honest and correct chain. While nodes do not need to be identified, they remain identifiable because of proof of work. In particular, a large node with sufficient CPU power to determine a network change is visible and easily identifiable. The only way to confirm the absence of a transaction is to be aware of the transaction, and hence this requires the public announcement of all transactions in the system.[1] Through this process, the nodes come to an agreement on a single history of the order of transactions received across the network. Each node operator may only trust the information they have independently obtained. The timestamp cannot be trusted, and only the receipt of a transaction can prove the time ordering.
[1] Ibid. p. 2.
So, I'm sorry for those individuals who like to believe that bitcoin acts without human intervention but machines do not make decisions, people do.
At any point in the Bitcoin White Paper where it discusses the voting or decision-making processes, the White Paper is referencing a human operator making a human decision.
In section 4 on pagge 3 of my paper,, I reference that a majority of CPU power when controlled by honest nodes will grow the honest chain faster than the competing chains.
CSW
Aug 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628584004442500?thread_ts=1628584004.442500&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2858
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment