<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">POW is by design the voting mechanism for the valid chain continuation. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Many rightfully dislike that the same voting mechanism is used on the validity rules, since ideally </div><div class="">validators (non-mining full nodes), SPV user and even those having an investment in their cold wallet </div><div class="">would all have a vote.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">That ideal voting mechanism is not yet in the protocol.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Before XT we used discussions and an informal consensus of those with commit access to github to evolve Bitcoin.</div><div class="">The decision, not the discussion, is now suggested to be replaced with POW vote with XT.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It is not hard to see problems with both approaches. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If XT comes closer to miner majority, validators will also be forced to take side, so they will be able to express</div><div class="">their vote. I think that most Bitcoin entrepreneurs will pick XT if Core has no comparable offer </div><div class="">to scale transactions per second.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">XT, Not-XT and a Core with some not-BIP101 offer will potentially set the stage for the perfect hard fork storm. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I still believe, that the idea of Bitcoin is powerful enough to weather that storm.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div>Tamas Blummer<br class=""><div apple-content-edited="true" class=""><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><br class=""></div></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Aug 20, 2015, at 14:29, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev <<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" class="">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Security is provided via POW.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">POW is only one aspect of security and that algorithm was created by developers and adopted by miners. Developers provide security by creating an algorithm and miners provide security by adopting it. If the developers and miners decided to do something insecure then Bitcoin will be insecure. POW is not some outside force.<br class=""><br class="">The security of Bitcoin as a system is a very complex subject that involve a number of factors that are the result of actions by humans.<br class=""><br class="">Russ<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">bitcoin-dev mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" class="">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br class="">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<br class=""><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>