Comment by LegionMammal978

1 day ago

Comsent by whom? In most "decentralized governance" projects I've heard about, all you need is for the holders of 51% of the tokens to agree, and the holders of the other 49% have no recourse but to leave.

14 comments

LegionMammal978

fouc 1 day ago

with bitcoin isn't it more about 51% of the compute rather than 51% of the token?

Geee 1 day ago
No, that's completely different thing. Mining power only "decides" about the blocks in the blockchain. 51% is only relevant in the context of taking over the blockchain by 51% attack.
Software versions and updates require social / economic consensus and have nothing to do with mining power. Bitcoin is open-source protocol / software and everyone can use whichever version they like. But there's also economic incentives to use the most used version and to make sure that it will keep being the most used version, i.e. forks are bad and should be avoided, therefore it's in everyone's interest to reach consensus.
- daveguy 21 hours ago
  
  So there are two different places that a coup against bitcoin could occur? Processing and Software.
  With something like 45% of processing controlled by entities in Iran, China, and Russia, it seems like an absolute fools game to put any significant wealth in Bitcoin. All it would take is a significantly effective worm to destroy bitcoin. But hypers gonna hype.
  You couldn't pay me to hold a Bitcoin.
  
  4 replies →
LegionMammal978 1 day ago
Yes, but I was talking about "decentralized leadership" in all the projects following Bitcoin, which often use 51% of stake instead of 51% of mining capacity, under the social theory that the biggest stakeholders will be the most invested in the outcome of the project.
- MichaelZuo 1 day ago
  
  Those with at least 51% of the sustained hash power can already redefine “Bitcoin” to be whatever they want… At any time whatsoever? (assuming they stay cohesive enough as a bloc)
  So this seems like a pointless distinction.
  
  5 replies →